Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 16 August 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on FRIDAY, 23 AUGUST 2024 at 10:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: LAND EAST OF TALIESIN WEST, GARELOCHHEAD (REF: 24/0008/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 58) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 59 - 96) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 97 - 100) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Andrew Kain Contact: Lynsey Innis, Senior Committee Assistant Tel: 01546 604338 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Page 1 of 5 Central Validation Team at Argyll and Bute Council 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Tel: 01546 605518 Email: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100668808-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity MH Planning Associates Michael Hyde West Princes Street 63 G84 8BN Scotland Helensburgh mh@mhplanning.co.uk Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr Lorne Argyll and Bute Council Thomson Suffolk Street 31 G84 9QZ Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead, Argyll And Bute Scotland Helensburgh Page 4
Page 5
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Erection of Dwellinghouse and Public Realm Enhancements See Grounds for Review Page 5
Page 6
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) Grounds for Review and Supporting Documents 1-5 20/01822/PPP 12/03/2024 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates 05/10/2020 In order to fully appreciate the signifcance of the public benefits proposed by the applicant Page 6
Page 7
Page 5 of 5 Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Michael Hyde Declaration Date: 18/04/2024 Page 7
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 9
REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF A SINGLE DWELLINGHOUSE, LAND WEST OF MCAULAY BURN, GARELOCHHEAD (LPA REFERENCE 20/01822/PPP) GROUNDS FOR REVIEW Submitted on behalf of Mr Lorne Thomson Page 9
Page 10
Page | 1 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF A SINGLE DWELLINGHOUSE, LAND WEST OF MCAULAY BURN, GARELOCHHEAD (LPA REFERENCE 20/01822/PPP) GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 1. Background: 1.1 The site the subject of the current application extends to 2.16 ha of open land to the east and south of the B833 at Garelochhead. It is wholly within the settlement boundary as defined in the recently adopted Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2). 1.2 The application site is not designated on the basis of its landscape or nature conservation value. It is however now designated as an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) (Figure 1). Figure 1: Extract from Local Development Plan 2 1.3 At the date of the submission of the review application (October 2020) the OSPA designation was not in force. The site was however within an Area for Action (AFA 3/7). Areas for Action are areas which, subject to resource availability during the plan-period, would be the focus for Page 10
Page 11
Page | 2 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant partnership or community action. In the Council’s Action Programme published in April 2015, which was in place when the review application was submitted, with respect to AFA 3/7 this stated that the nature of the actions proposed were: 1. To consider options to effectively manage and visually enhance this important recreation and open space area within the village; and 2. That this may include consideration of options for low-key recreational development links to access provision. 1.4 It was for this reason that the applicant proposed, as a fundamental part of his application for planning permission, a proposal to landscape and manage the remainder of his land for the long term benefit of the local community. 1.5 The McAulay Burn passes through the application site, and discharges into the Gare Loch to the south. Because of this, part of the application site is subject to both coastal and river flooding, as indicated on the SEPA Flood Map. 1.6 A previous application for the erection of a dwelling on the application site was submitted in April 2020 (LPA reference 20/00703/PPP). This application was subsequently withdrawn, on the advice of the Council, in order that an appropriate mechanism for implementing the public realm enhancements could be secured. The clear inference was that, once this had been done, planning permission in principle would be able to be granted. 1.7 Prior to the submission of that application a pre-application enquiry was submitted (LPA reference 19/02493/PREAPP). The response dated 28 November 2019 stated under the heading “Impact upon the Area for Action designation AFA 3/7 Garelochhead Local” (Document 1): “This outlines that Councils strategy for this site which is to enhance recreation and open space. The erection of a house in this location is contrary to this strategy. In considering whether the house could be supported as a minor departure from the development plan other material considerations are required to be examined to establish if these could outweigh policy in this instance. It is my view that there is significant community benefit by way of upgrading of footpaths, new public realm areas and the new memorial. I place significant weight on these considerations and consider the proposal subject to a full planning assessment, acceptable.” Page 11
Page 12
Page | 3 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 1.8 A follow-up pre-application response was received on 29 January 2020 (LPA reference 20/00106/PREAPP) (Document 2). This referenced the proposed designation of the application site as part of a larger Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) and stated that the application site is considered to have value for recreation, visual function and relaxation. The applicant was advised to submit evidence to demonstrate that there would be no detrimental impact upon the OSPA, or loss to the local community. The response concluded by stating that: “If this evidence demonstrates no detrimental impact upon the OSPA, or loss to the local community, I would be willing to consider it as a minor departure from Policy”. 1.9 The review application was submitted on 5 October 2020. Notwithstanding the initial confirmation that the application proposal would be able to be supported in principle, as a minor departure from policy, the application (after being with the Council for over 3 years) was ultimately refused on 12 March 2024 for the following three reasons (Document 3): 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 Page 12
Page 13
Page | 4 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 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. 1.10 Whilst it is fully accepted that pre-application advice cannot guarantee the outcome of a subsequent planning application, if it is to be of any value, such advice should be reasonably reliable. In particular, it is logical for an applicant to expect the advice made by Planning Officers regarding the principle of a development to be consistent with their subsequent recommendation following the receipt of a formal submission. 1.11 The attached awards of costs in relation to appeal APP/P0240/W/18/3210480 (Document 4), albeit an English decision, address the issue of the reliability of pre-application advice. In paragraph 12 of this the appointed Inspector states: “I find that this sudden change in position without any reasonable justification, other than a difference of professional opinion between two Council officers, amounts to unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the Council. Such behaviour provides a great deal of uncertainty to the developer, particularly in this instance as the application was submitted with a justifiable expectation that it would be approved.” 1.12 There is thus a fair expectation that pre-application advice should be reliable and that potential applicants should not be given “false hope”. This is however exactly what has happened in the current case, the applicant believes that he was given false hope. At the pre-application stage the Council’s Planning Officer stated that in his view there would be “significant community benefit by way of upgrading of footpaths, new public realm areas and the new memorial” and that if the application “demonstrates no detrimental impact upon the OSPA, or loss to the local community, I would be willing to consider it as a minor departure from Page 13
Page 14
Page | 5 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant Policy”. It was on the basis of this advice that the review application was submitted. 2. Proposed Development: 2.1 The development proposed is the erection of a single dwellinghouse. The application seeks planning permission in principle, with detailed matters of design and external appearance reserved for subsequent approval. 2.2 As the Council’s request, the application site boundary extends to all of the land in the applicant’s ownership and proposes on the land outwith the identified house plot a comprehensive package of public realm enhancement works. These include the following: • The implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management (see submitted drawings 1561-01C and 1561-02 prepared by Hirst Landscape Architects); • Improvements to the network of footpaths that cross the application site; 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 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_K13). 2.3 With respect to the above, the applicant undertook informal discussions with Garelochhead Community Council. In principle the Community Council stated that they were supportive of the package of proposals, particularly the K13 memorial. 3. Relevant Development Plan Policies: 3.1 Section 25 of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that “where in making any determination under the planning act regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. 3.2 Notwithstanding the fact that the review application was submitted in October 2020, the Development Plan relevant to the application proposal now comprises the: • The National Planning Framework (2023); and • The Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024). Page 14
Page 15
Page | 6 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 3.3 Section 13 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 is now in force. This alters Section 24 of the 1997 Act to state that in the event of ‘any incompatibility’ between a provision of the National Planning Framework (‘the NPF’) and a provision of a Local Development Plan (‘the LDP’), whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail. National Planning Framework 3.4 The following policies of the National Planning Framework were referred to in the reasons for refusal of the review application: Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises), which states that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 2 (Climate Mitigation and Adaptation), which states that development proposals will be sited and designed to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible and will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Policy 3 (Biodiversity), which states that development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals should also integrate nature-based solutions, where possible. 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. Policy 4 (Natural Places), which states that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. 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. Page 15
Page 16
Page | 7 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings), which 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. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), which states that development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. Development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: • Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving physical and mental health. • Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces. • Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency • Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity. • Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions. • Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. Policy 16 (Quality Homes), which states that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances where: i. The proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and ii. The proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods; iii. and either: • Delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline. This will be determined by reference to two consecutive years of the Housing Land Audit evidencing substantial delivery earlier than pipeline timescales and that general trend being sustained; or • The proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes; or Page 16
Page 17
Page | 8 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • The proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary; or • The proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan. Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure), which 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. Policy 21 (Play, Recreation and Sport), which states that development proposals that include new streets and public realm should be inclusive and enable children and young people to play and move around safely and independently, maximising opportunities for informal and incidental play in the neighbourhood. Local Development Plan 2 3.5 The following policies of the Local Development Plan 2 were also referred to in the reasons for refusal of the review application: Policy 01 (Settlement Areas), which states that within the Settlement Areas as defined on the proposals maps development will normally be acceptable where: • It is located within an area of land allocated for the proposed use in this Local Development Plan 2 and it complies with any development brief which has been approved by the Council; or • It is on a site which is the redevelopment of a brownfield site; or • Is on a non-brownfield site, and the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to the overall land supply for the proposed use, and • It is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively; providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development, and • 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; and Page 17
Page 18
Page | 9 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • It complies with all relevant Local Development Plan 2 policies. Policy 04 (Sustainable Development), which states that in preparing new development proposals, developers should seek to demonstrate the following sustainable development principles, which the planning authority will also use in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission: a) Maximise the opportunity for local community benefit, including the creation of district (renewable) heat networks, where viable; b) Make efficient use of vacant and/or derelict land including appropriate buildings; c) Support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; d) Maximise the opportunities for sustainable forms of design including minimising waste, reducing our carbon footprint, increasing energy efficiency, solar panels, ground, water and air source heat pumps and other forms of renewable energy generation; e) Avoid the use of locally important good quality agricultural land; f) Utilise public transport corridors and active travel networks; g) Avoid the loss of important recreational and amenity open space; h) Conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; i) Respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; j) Avoid places with significant risk of flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability; and k) Avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), which states that to achieve good quality places proposals should endeavour to comply with all of the following placemaking criteria: • The proposed use should be compatible with surrounding land uses. • The proposal should, where practicable, be resource efficient by utilising existing infrastructure and facilities. • The design should respect site topography and any surrounding important landmarks or views. • The design should create and improve connectivity within, and where practical, beyond the site. • Green and blue infrastructure should be an integral part of the design process from the outset. Page 18
Page 19
Page | 10 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • The design should develop the area’s sense of identity by understanding and embracing the existing distinctive characteristics, with the design respecting and complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes. • Where the site contains existing buildings, structures and/or natural features that contribute to the character and identity of the wider area, these should be retained and sensitively integrated into the design unless it has been clearly demonstrated to the planning authority that it is not practicable. • The siting and design should respond to the natural environment in a sustainable manner. • The proposal should consider the design of active frontages, and create welcoming, inclusive places with a coherent structure of streets, spaces and buildings which are easy to move around, prioritising the needs of pedestrians and cyclists above motor vehicles. • The access to and orientation of buildings should reinforce the street or open space to create safe and pleasant places. • The design should be sustainable in terms of materials and construction and should consider future adaptability, and climate change mitigation measures. Policy 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure), which states that where appropriate new non householder developments shall adequately demonstrate how green and blue infrastructure has been integrated into the design of the proposal from the outset. In particular, but not limited to, proposals should demonstrate: • How the development contributes to existing green networks – the linkage of the proposed green and blue infrastructure for the development to the existing wider green and blue infrastructure. • How the development promotes active travel – how priority for movement in, out and around the development is given to walking and other non-motorised forms of transport and how it links to wider active travel networks. • How the development provides for open green space – how multifunctional green space has been embedded into the design of the development including formal and informal open spaces and how they contribute to the creation of a high quality place. (This includes how the provision of the required amounts of children’s play space and communal casual open space set out in Policy 68 – Housing Greenspace, which has been made an integral part of the design.) Page 19
Page 20
Page | 11 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • How the development provides for biodiversity – how it preserves and enhances local habitats within and around the site and contributes to existing wildlife corridors. • How development proposals will manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), which should form part of and integrate with proposed and existing blue-green infrastructure. All SUDS features should be in accordance with the Principles of The SUDS Manual (C753). • Climate change – how the proposed green and blue infrastructure provision contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation. • That the proposal would not have a negative impact upon existing green and blue infrastructure or would result in the fragmentation or loss of integrity of existing green networks. • How the proposed green and blue infrastructure will be managed in the future including maintenance and funding arrangements for its long term management. Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), which states that each of the following will apply when assessing any proposal for development, including those for outbuildings and extensions: • The development should integrate into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment. Particularly careful attention should be given to hilltop, skyline or ridge locations, where development will only be acceptable if such a location cannot be avoided and any significant adverse landscape and visual effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of community wide importance arising from the development proposal, and have been sufficiently mitigated through an environmental impact assessment or landscape and visual impact assessment. • Development on a sloping site should be designed sensitively taking account of the topography in order to prevent significant excavation or under-building. • The siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density. • All new residential developments are required to consider provision for Growing Spaces – See Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure. • Any development should be carefully sited to avoid overshadowing or overlooking of itself or other properties. • The development should be positioned within the landscape to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements and minimise adverse environmental effects – this Page 20
Page 21
Page | 12 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant need must be balanced with the restrictions and opportunities the topography places on the siting. • The development should be sited within easy access of existing infrastructure and services • Any ancillary development such as parking and service areas, should be sensitively designed and sited. A co-ordinated approach is required to development in that it must not compromise the effective development of adjacent land, or the comprehensive development and regeneration of a wider area as provided for in a masterplan, strategy or development brief approved by the council. Policy 10 (Design: All Development), which 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; and • Acknowledge the scale, mass and spirit of nearby buildings but steer clear of mimicry and pastiche; and • Incorporate existing and enhancing features where applicable; and • Avoid falsification of period details; and • Use appropriate proportions for building elements and details including, where applicable, massing and fenestration; and • Use materials that are harmonious with the context but embody honesty and legibility of contemporary design; and • Consider the embodied energy and durability of proposed materials; and • Incorporate the use of flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods. Policy 26 (Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development), which states that development which provides for enhanced informal public outdoor recreation and leisure facilities and attractions or provides improved opportunities for outdoor access will be supported where: • It addresses an identifiable shortfall or makes a positive contribution to the tourism network and visitor experience; and • It can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the proposal can be satisfactorily integrated into the Page 21
Page 22
Page | 13 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant landscape; and • There are no adverse environmental, access, or servicing impacts. Policy 73 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity), which states that when considering development proposals Argyll and Bute Council will give full consideration to the legislation, policies and conservation objectives, contained within the following: i) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; (and as amended by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004); Species listed on Schedules 1, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 14. ii) Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. A Code of Practice on Non-Native Species supports this Act. iii) Protection of Badgers Act 1992. iv) The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, species listed on Schedules 2 and 4. When considering development proposals, the Council will also seek to contribute to the delivery of the objectives and targets set by the Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) and the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. 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). Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of international, national and/or local importance exists on a proposed development site or would be affected by the proposed development, the Council will require the applicant, at his/her own expense, to submit a specialist survey of the site’s natural environment, and if necessary, a mitigation plan, with the planning application. Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas), which 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 Page 22
Page 23
Page | 14 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 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. 4. Grounds for Review: 4.1 Whilst the Planning Officer has referred to a significant number of lengthy policies in the three reasons for refusal of the review application it is considered that the following are the key planning issues that require to be addressed by the Local Review Body: The Principle of the Development 4.2 The application site is located within the settlement boundary for Garelochhead. As such, having regard to Policy 01 of the recently adopted LDP2, there is a general presumption in favour of new development. Notwithstanding this, it is also the case that the entirely of the land in the applicant’s ownership has (without his agreement) been designated by the Council as an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA). 4.3 Having regard to this designation Policy 81 of LDP2 states that development proposals resulting in the loss of OSPAs will not be permitted Page 23
Page 24
Page | 15 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant unless, 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. 4.4 The development of the application site would result in the loss of just 5.5% of the overall OSPA. On the other hand, the remaining 21% of the OSPA that is also in the applicant’s ownership will be significantly enhanced, by the applicant, for the benefit of everyone who uses the land. The enhancements proposed include improvements to the network of informal footpaths through the site, the implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management, and the formation of wild flower meadows (see Figure 2 below). Figure 2: Proposed Public Realm Enhancement (Extract from Hirst Landscape Architects Drawing 1561-01C) 4.5 The Planning Officer has said in the reasons for refusal that these public benefits would be “modest” and that there would not be a clear mechanism for their delivery and maintenance; contrast this with the Page 24
Page 25
Page | 16 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant advice of the Planning Officer who provided the pre-application advice who considered that the benefits to the community would be “significant”. 4.6 It is also not correct to say that there would be no mechanism that would secure the proposed public realm enhancements. These could be secured either via the imposition of an appropriately worded planning condition, or through the registering of a Section 75 Agreement, and both of these options have been discussed with the Council. It was precisely for this reason that the applicant was advised by Officers to withdraw application 20/00703/PPP, and to reapply with the red line application site boundary around all of his land. 4.7 Whist there might therefore be considered to be a conflict with Policy 81 of the LDP2, given the OSPA designation, as the Planning Act states, determinations should be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance it is considered that the material considerations, i.e. the proposed public realm enhancements (which can be secured, and which will be funded entirely by the applicant), are sufficient to outweigh the loss of a very small part of the overall OSPA. On this basis, planning permission in principle should be able to be granted as a ‘minor departure’ from the provisions of the Development Plan. Potential Impact on Biodiversity 4.8 As noted above, the application site is not specifically designated for its biodiversity value. The third reason for refusal of planning permission nevertheless states that no ecological survey has been provided, and that this issue cannot be dealt with by planning conditions or reserved matters. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer submitted a consultation response (Document 5). Notwithstanding the fact that the site is not specifically designated for its wildlife value the applicant was requested to undertake surveys in respect of otters, bats, birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians and fish! 4.9 In this respect the applicant found himself in a ‘Catch 22’ situation. He had previously been advised by the Planning Officer that the application was going to be recommended for refusal in principle, yet he was then being asked to spend a not insignificant amount of money on wildlife surveys. The applicant has no objections to undertaking the requested wildlife surveys but would only feel comfortable in committing to doing so if the Local Review Body were able to confirm that the application would be able to be approved in principle. Page 25
Page 26
Page | 17 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 4.10 With respect to biodiversity Policy 3 of the NPF is particularly relevant. This states that development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals for local developments should include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, in accordance with national and local guidance. 4.11 As has been noted above the applicant is proposing, should planning permission in principle be granted, a significant programme of tree and shrub planting, and the formation of wildflower meadows, on his land. All of these measures will significantly increase the overall biodiversity value of the application site, in accordance with the requirements of Policy 3 of the NPF. 4.12 Furthermore, the applicant is already committed to an ongoing programme of works to eradicate Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica syn. Fallopia japonica) from his land. To date approximately an acre or previously inaccessible land has been cleared of knotweed, which was in the region of 10 feet high and spreading. This should be completely eradicated within another two years. 4.13 SEPA’s advice with respect to Japanese knotweed is that if you have this on your land, you should ensure it does not spread off your land. If it spreads into the wild, this is an offence under the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. The Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan also recognises the danger to the natural environment, should Japanese knotweed be allowed to spread. Potential Flood Risk 4.14 Finally, although not a reason for refusal, and as noted above, parts of the land owned by the applicant are subject to both coastal and river flooding, as indicated on the SEPA Flood map. Both Policy 22 of the NPF and Policy 55 of the LDP2 state that development on the functional flood plain will not be able to be supported, other than in limited circumstances such as essential infrastructure or water compatible uses, 4.15 The initial application (20/00703/PPP) was accompanied by a topographical survey, and also a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) that was undertaken in 2007. This FRA states that any flood risk to the land proposed for development comes from high water levels in the McAulay Burn, or a high tide in the Gare Loch backing up the burn, and from possible combinations of these events. Page 26
Page 27
Page | 18 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 4.16 The 2007 FRA compared the 1 in 200 year water level of 4.0 mAOD, with existing ground levels over the area, and indicated that whilst some of the applicant’s land would be at medium to high risk of flooding, the area of higher land adjoining the B833 (which includes the proposed house plot) would be suitable for new residential development. To ensure that any new housing is secure against both tidal and fluvial flooding, the FRA recommends that the finished floor level of any new dwellings be no lower than 5.6 mAOD. The application site is c 8.5-9.0 mAOD, and thus the proposed new dwelling will not be at risk of flooding. 4.17 Notwithstanding the above SEPA initially objected to application 20/00703/PPP, and provided the following advice: “The FRA has adopted a conservative approach and allowed for 1m freeboard, where it recommends that the house Finished Flood Level (FFL) would sit at a level of 5.6m AOD, which we consider to represent a conservative level. Due to the age of the FRA, we are unable to accept the outputs for land use planning and therefore require the assessment to be updated. Alternatively, we acknowledge that parts of the site clearly sit above the functional floodplain and we require the proposed location of the dwellinghouse to be confirmed. We note that the general supporting statement stipulates that the house will be located at 8.5m AOD – 9m AOD, which is well above the functional floodplain. Conversely, the Indicative Masterplan shows an ‘Area Proposed for Development’ that starts at 4.5m AOD, and may be within the functional floodplain. In summary, we would either need to see evidence that the proposed unit will be situated at a conservative elevation (significantly above the CFB), or we would need to see a revised Flood Risk Assessment, before reviewing our objection on flood risk grounds.” 4.18 Similar advice was received from the Council’s Flood Management Officer. 4.19 In response to this advice the applicant commissioned Kaya Consulting to provide comments on flood risk to the proposed development based on its location. The application would not have commissioned the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) had he known that his application was going to be refused. The FRA concluded that: Page 27
Page 28
Page | 19 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant “Finished Floor Levels for the development should be discussed with the local council with reference to the latest climate change guidance. It is understood that the Finished Floor Level of the proposed development will not be lower than 7.0mAOD. On this basis, it will be at least 1.7 m above the estimated 1 in 200-year plus climate change flood level, which is more than enough to encompass a freeboard (typically 0.6 m) and an allowance for waves.” 4.20 Drawing 2019_0057/04A indicates the developable part of the proposed house plot, all of which is above 7.0mAOD. On the basis of the prior submission of this drawing SEPA confirmed that their objection to the application could be withdrawn. There will therefore be no conflict with either Policy 22 of the NPF or Policy 55 of the LDP2. 5. Conclusions: 5.1 In conclusion, prior to the submission of the review application, the applicant undertook two ‘rounds’ or pre-application discussions with the Council. The Planning Officer confirmed that in his opinion there would be “significant community benefit by way of upgrading of footpaths, new public realm areas and the new memorial” and that if the application submission demonstrated no detrimental impact upon the proposed OSPA, or loss to the local community, that he “would be willing to consider it as a minor departure from Policy”. It was on the basis of this advice that the review application was submitted. 5.2 At the date of the submission of the review application (October 2020) the OSPA designation was not in force. The site was however within an Area for Action (AFA 3/7). Areas for Action are areas which, subject to resource availability during the plan-period, would be the focus for partnership or community action. In the Council’s Action Programme published in April 2015, which was in place when the review application was submitted, with respect to AFA 3/7 this stated that the nature of the actions proposed were: 1. To consider options to effectively manage and visually enhance this important recreation and open space area within the village; and 2. That this may include consideration of options for low-key recreational development links to access provision. 5.3 It was for this reason that the applicant proposed, as a fundamental part of his application for planning permission, proposals to landscape and manage the remainder of his land for the long term benefit of the local Page 28
Page 29
Page | 20 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant community. His proposals include the following: • The undertaking of a comprehensive package of public realm enhancements on the land outwith the identified house plot (see submitted drawings 1561-01C and 1561-02 prepared by Hirst Landscape Architects). This will include the implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management; • Improvements to the network of footpaths that cross the application site; 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 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_K13). 5.4 In this context the applicant undertook informal discussions with Garelochhead Community Council. In principle the Community Council stated that they were supportive of the package of proposals, particularly the K13 memorial. The implementation of the proposed public realm enhancements could easily be secured either via the imposition of an appropriately worded planning condition, or through the registering of a Section 75 Agreement. 5.5 The application site is not designated for its biodiversity value and is not at risk from flooding. With respect to biodiversity Policy 3 of the NPF states that development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. As is noted above the applicant is already eradicating Japanese knotweed from his land, and is furthermore proposing, should planning permission in principle be granted, a significant programme of new tree and shrub planting, and the formation of wildflower meadows. All of these measures will significantly increase the overall biodiversity value of the application site, in accordance with the requirements of this policy. 5.6 On the basis of all of the above, given the “significant community benefit” that would accrue, at no cost to the Council, should planning permission in principle be able to be granted, it is hoped that an approval can be forthcoming as a minor departure from the provisions of the Development Plan. Page 29
Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 31
Argyll and Bute Council – Development Management Pre Application Advice Report 28th November 2019 Reference: 19/02493/PREAPP Proposed Development: Pre Application Enquiry - erection of dwellinghouse, upgrade of existing footpaths, provision of footbridge and erection of memorial Site Address: Land At Garelochhead Argyll And Bute The information represents the informal view of the planning officer and is given without prejudice to the outcome of any planning application submitted in respect of the above development. Page 31
Page 32
Permissions Required ☐ Planning permission Type of Application ☐ Local Application EIA Scoping/Screening Required ☐ No, EIA screening is not required Pre Application Consultation Required ☐ No Site Visit Undertaken ☐ No Local Development Plan Policies • LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development The Settlement and Spatial Strategy • LDP DM1 – Development within the Development Management Zones Protection, Conserving and Enhancing our Outstanding Environment Together • LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment Strengthening Our Communities Together • LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities • LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design Improving Our Connectivity and Infrastructure Together • LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure Local Development Plan – Supplementary Guidance Policies Natural Environment • SG LDP ENV 1 – Development Impact of Habitats, Species and Our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity) • SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees / Woodland Landscape and Design • SG LDP ENV 14 –Landscape General Housing Development • SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development including Affordable Housing Page 32
Page 33
Sport, Leisure, Recreation and Open Space • SG LDP REC/COM 1 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities • SG LDP REC/COM 2 – Safeguarding Sports Field, Recreation Areas and Open Space Protection Areas Departures from the Local Development Plan • SG LDP DEP 1 – Departures to the Local Development Plan Sustainable Siting and Design • SG LDP Sustainable - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Resources and Consumption • SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewerage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. drainage) systems • SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / Sustainable Systems (SUDS) • SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage and Collection Facilities within New Development • SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Addressing Climate Change • SG LDP SERV 7 – Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development • SG LDP CC 1 – Climate Change and Sustainable Buildings Transport (including core paths) • SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes • SG LDP TRAN 6 –Vehicle Parking Provision • SG LDP TRAN 1 Access to the Outdoors Other Relevant Material Considerations Area for Action AFA3/7 Public Paths: C280(a) - Garelochhead to Loch Long Way Planning History None Assessment I refer to the above and can confirm the following observations; Erection of dwellinghouse. Policy DM 1 allows development within the Key Rural Settlements up to and including medium scale on appropriate sites. The proposal for one dwellinghouse is within the terms of this Policy Policy LDP 3 outlines that the Council will assess applications for planning permission with the aim of protecting conserving and where possible enhancing the built, human and natural environment. I would suggest that any proposed design would ensure the established character and local distinctiveness of the area is preserved in terms of scale, form and design. The site is not located within a National Scenic Area nor is it within an Area of Panoramic Quality. Page 33
Page 34
Policy LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of Our Communities The current proposal sits comfortably within these parameters as it is for one unit. Housing development proposals shall make appropriate access, recreational and open space provision for the special needs groups. Policy LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design The design of developments and structures shall be compatible with the surroundings, particular attention shall be given to massing, form and design details within sensitive locations. This open recreational space is considered visually sensitive. I would suggest the design reflects other houses within this area and the public realm and memorial areas are located away from the footprint of the house. Policy LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing Our Consumption Connection to the public sewer will be required, unless you can demonstrate that connection is not feasible, for technical or economic reasons, or the receiving waste water treatment plant is at capacity and Scottish Water at that time has no programmed investment to increase that capacity; and the proposal is not likely to result in or add to existing environmental, amenity or health problems. Planning consent for development with private waste water systems will only be allowed where proposals satisfy all of the above. In accordance with Government Advice the Council will encourage developers to incorporate existing ponds, watercourses or wetlands as positive environmental features in development schemes. The Council will also require that canalisation or culverting, which can increase the risk of flooding and also greatly reduce the ecological and amenity value of watercourses are avoided wherever practicable and designed sensitively where unavoidable. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) provide benefits in terms of flood avoidance, water quality, habitat creation and amenity. Proposals for SuDs measures compliant with technical guidance will be required in relation to all development prior to determination. The Council will require all development proposals incorporate proposals for SUDS measures in accordance with technical guidance. A Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) is required as the area is affected by flooding and will have a lot of wildlife interest. In all cases the Council will encourage the use of sustainable options for waste and surface water drainage. Housing developments shall make effective provision for the storage, recycling, composting where appropriate, separation and collection of waste from within the development site or when appropriate, from an appropriate roadside or other specified collection point or points (for onward reuse and recycling) There is support in principle for the use of private water supplies where a public water supply is not, or could not be made available. This support is subject to the private water supply being of adequate quality and quantity to serve the proposed development without prejudicing the lawful interests of neighbouring properties or land and water users. Applicants will be required to submit full details of the proposed private water supply arrangements with their application, including a report by independent and suitably qualified engineers demonstrating that the proposed water supply has sufficient capacity and quality to supply existing water users and the proposed new development. In addition, in those areas where Scottish Water advise that there are on-going public water supply shortages, all developments that require water supplies for either human or animal consumption, or for other processes or activities relating to industrial or commercial activities shall require to demonstrate the incorporation of water conservation measures such as rainwater harvesting or the re-use of grey water. Policy LDP 11 Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure. Integration of the development with existing and potential public transport shall be taken fully into account. The proposed development shall be accessible by a range of modes of transport, including walking, cycling, public transport and car. An appropriate standard of access is delivered to serve Page 34
Page 35
new developments, including off-site highway improvements where appropriate, maximum and minimum car parking standards are applied, the location and design of new infrastructure is appropriate and standards for drainage, sewage, waste water and water supply are applied. Off- street car and vehicle parking shall be provided for development on the following basis: Car parking standards; 1.5 spaces per 1 bedroom unit, 2 spaces per 2-3 bedroom unit and 3 spaces per 4 or more bedroom units. Consideration should be given to Development Impact on Trees/Woodland in as the site is heavily wooded. Argyll and Bute Council will also resist development likely to have an adverse impact on trees by ensuring through the development management process that adequate provision is made for the preservation of and where appropriate the planting of new woodland/trees, including compensatory planting and management agreements. Erection of footbridge The design of the footbridge should be in keeping within an established residential area and be domestic in scale. The proposal should also meet the terms of the Councils National Roads Development Guide: Proposed Argyll and Bute Local Amendments and SG LDP TRAN 4. Public Realm works/Upgrading of footpaths Materials used should include sustainable design principles outlined above. The proposal should meet the terms of the Councils National Roads Development Guide: Proposed Argyll and Bute Local Amendments and SG LDP TRAN 4. Any public footpath should ensure the protection of the Public Path: C280(a) - Garelochhead to Loch Long Way which is a core pathway to the south of the site. Erection of memorial I would suggest there is community engagement in relation to the siting and design of this memorial. Impact upon the Area for Action designation AFA 3/7 Garelochhead Local This outlines that Councils strategy for this site which is to enhance recreation and open space. The erection of a house in this location is contrary to this strategy. In considering whether the house could be supported as a minor departure from the development plan other material considerations are required to be examined to establish if these could outweigh policy in this instance. It is my view that there is significant community benefit by way of upgrading of footpaths, new public realm areas and the new memorial. I place significant weight on these considerations and consider the proposal subject to a full planning assessment, acceptable. This preliminary assessment is based on current information, in the event of a formal planning application being submitted, the Council must take into account views of consultees and representations from the public as appropriate. Any subsequent assessment must reflect this and may therefore differ from the initial assessment. Finally, the above is the view of Development Management and may not necessarily be those of the Planning Authority. If you do decide to make an application for planning permission, please be aware that the Council actively promotes online submission of applications through the Government’s ePlanning Portal at www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk You can also get more advice and guidance on our own website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk Consultees for any future application The following consultees are likely to be consulted in the event of a formal application being consulted. You may wish to contact consultees for additional pre application advice prior to the submission of your application. Please note that on occasion it may be necessary to involve consultees who are listed below as a formal application progresses. • Scottish Water • Helensburgh Community Council • Biodiversity Officer Page 35
Page 36
• Argyll and Bute Council Environmental Health • Flood Risk Assessor • Scottish Environmental Protection Agency • Argyll and Bute Council Roads Supporting information required for any future application • Design and Access Statement; • Landscape Plan; • Topographical Survey; Case Officer Name and Contact Details Name of Officer: Frazer MacLeod Designation: Planning Officer Tel: 01546 605518 Useful Information: Apply Online: https://www.eplanning.scot/ePlanningClient/ National Validation Guidance: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/hops-validation-and- determination-guidance-updated-12-10-17.pdf Processing Agreements: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/processing-agreements Page 36
Page 37
Argyll and Bute Council – Development Management Pre Application Advice Report 29th January 2020 Reference: 20/00106/PREAPP Proposed Development: Pre Application Enquiry - erection of dwellinghouse/s, upgrade of existing footpaths, provision of footbridge and erection of memorial Site Address: Land At Garelochhead Argyll And Bute The information represents the informal view of the planning officer and is given without prejudice to the outcome of any planning application submitted in respect of the above development. Page 37
Page 38
Permissions Required ☐ Planning permission Type of Application ☐ Local Application EIA Scoping/Screening Required ☐ No, EIA screening is not required Pre Application Consultation Required ☐ No Site Visit Undertaken ☐ No Local Development Plan 2 The site is now designated as an open space protection area (OSPA) which are open spaces that can include; 1. Outdoor sports facilities - such as sports pitches, bowling greens and tennis courts 2. Valued recreation areas - such as woodlands, parks and other areas that are accessible for informal recreation 3. Areas for growing food - such as allotments or community gardens 4. Greenspace amenity areas – Accessible and non-accessible areas that provide visual amenity functions in and around our settlements such as maintaining setting, identity or character or by providing visual green spaces within more built up areas. The site within this pre-application area is considered to fall into category of 2 and 4 as it has value for recreation, visual function and relaxation. Any loss of OSPAs will require robust justification. In certain situations it will be necessary to demonstrate that all at attempts have been made to transfer or sell the facility concerned for the same or a similar alternative use in order that appropriate opportunity has been given to preserve the open space resource and avoid its loss to development. The revised LDP2 policy for OSPA areas is; Policy 81 – Open Space Protection Areas 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 Page 38
Page 39
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. Assessment The current proposal is tested against the most relevant parts of policy which are parts (a) and (e). The use of the site as a location for a housing development is contrary to this policy, I would therefore require justification to be submitted alongside any planning application to show the following; • Evidence from the landowner that all at attempts have been made to transfer or sell the facility concerned for the same or a similar alternative use in order that appropriate opportunity has been given to preserve the open space resource and avoid its loss to development. • Evidence that the housing development is ancillary to the principal use of the site or only involves a very minor part of the site with no detriment to woodland. • Evidence the housing development would not affect the integrity and continued existing use or amenity value of the OSPA. • The submission of a woodland maintenance and management strategy. • Evidence that the area of the proposed housing development can be provided at an alternative site with equal community benefit and accessibility. If this evidence demonstrates no detrimental impact upon the OSPA, or loss to the local community, I would be willing to consider it as a minor departure from Policy. This preliminary assessment is based on current information, in the event of a formal planning application being submitted, the Council must take into account views of consultees and representations from the public as appropriate. Any subsequent assessment must reflect this and may therefore differ from the initial assessment. Finally, the above is the view of Development Management and may not necessarily be those of the Planning Authority. If you do decide to make an application for planning permission, please be aware that the Council actively promotes online submission of applications through the Government’s ePlanning Portal at www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk You can also get more advice and guidance on our own website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 39
Page 40
Other Relevant Material Considerations PAN 65 – Planning and Open Space Planning History None Consultees for any future application The following consultees are likely to be consulted in the event of a formal application being consulted. You may wish to contact consultees for additional pre application advice prior to the submission of your application. Please note that on occasion it may be necessary to involve consultees who are listed below as a formal application progresses. • Scottish Water • Helensburgh Community Council • Biodiversity Officer • Argyll and Bute Council Environmental Health • Flood Risk Assessor • Scottish Environmental Protection Agency • Argyll and Bute Council Roads Supporting information required for any future application • Design and Access Statement; • Landscape Plan; • Topographical Survey; Case Officer Name and Contact Details Name of Officer: Frazer MacLeod Designation: Planning Officer Tel: 01546 605518 Useful Information: Apply Online: https://www.eplanning.scot/ePlanningClient/ National Validation Guidance: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/hops-validation-and- determination-guidance-updated-12-10-17.pdf Processing Agreements: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/processing-agreements Page 40
Page 41
38 East Clyde Street Helensburgh G84 7PG TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE REFERENCE NUMBER: 20/01822/PPP Mr Lorne Thomson MH Planning Associates 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh Scotland G84 8BN I refer to your application dated 6th October 2020 for planning permission in principle under the above mentioned Act and Regulations in respect of the following development: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse and public realm enhancements at Land East Of Taliesin West Garelochhead Argyll And Bute Argyll and Bute Council in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act and Regulations hereby refuse planning permission in principle for the above development for the reason(s) contained in the attached appendix. Dated: 12 March 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 41
Page 42
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 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 42
Page 43
NOTES TO APPLICANT (1) RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 20/01822/PPP 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) within three months from the date of this notice. A Notice of Review request must be submitted on an official form which can be obtained by contacting The Local Review Body, Committee Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT or by email to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, and it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the landowner’s interest in the land, in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). Page 43
Page 44
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application: 20/01822/PPP A. Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. No (delete as appropriate) if yes, list amendments B. Is the proposal a departure from the Development Plan: No If yes, state level of departure: C. Summary justification statement for refusal of planning permission in principle The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies 01, 03, 04, 14, 16, 20 and 21 of National Planning Framework 4, and policies 01, 04, 05, 06, 08, 10, 26, 73 and 81 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard to s25 of the Act. Page 44
Page 45
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision Hearing Held on 26 June 2019 Site visit made on 25 and 26 June 2019 by Alexander Walker MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th July 2019 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/18/3210480 Former Shefford Lower School, land off Wynchwood Lane, Shefford SG17 5XA • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr Troy Mayer on behalf of Black Horse Residential Ltd. for a full award of costs against Central Bedfordshire Council. • The hearing was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of 7 new dwellings. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. The submissions for Mr Troy Mayer on behalf of Black Horse Residential Ltd. 2. The applicant claims that whilst the decision notice refers to a single policy, Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) 2009, the Council has provided no evidence as to why the proposal does not accord with this policy. 3. Furthermore, the Council have proposed the site for development from the marketing exercise. The approach taken by the local highway authority that the access of Wynchwood Lane is unsuitable would sterilise the site, which is an unreasonable turnaround on behalf of the Council The response by Central Bedfordshire Council 4. The Council refute the applicant’s first claim as Policy DM3 is clearly identified in the reason for refusal. Furthermore, it was not necessary to raise it in addition to the applicant’s discussion on Policy DM3 during the hearing. 5. In response to the second claim, the Council state that the local planning authority and highway authority were not involved in the preparation of this evidence submitted at the marketing stage of the site. Furthermore, whilst the pre-application advice was in favour of the proposal, this does not prejudice the local planning authority’s consideration of the formal submission of the application. Page 45
Page 46
Costs Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3210480 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Reasons 6. Planning Policy Guidance advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary expense in the appeal process. 7. The reason for refusal set out in the decision notice is complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. It also clearly states that the proposal would conflict with Policy DM3 of the CSDMP. This reason was adequately substantiated by the Council in its statement of case, which demonstrates how the proposal would harm highway safety, with particular regard to visibility and access for refuse collection vehicles. Whilst the Council does not explicitly refer to DM3 in in its statement of case, the applicant evidently identified the relevance of this policy, stating during the hearing that bullet point 8 was the relevant part of the policy, to which the Council agreed. By the inclusion of this Policy within the reason for refusal, and with bullet point 8 being the only relevant part of it to this proposal, it is clear to infer from this and their remaining evidence that the Council finds that the proposal does not incorporate appropriate access. 8. Therefore, in this regard, I do not consider that the Council have behaved unreasonably. 9. With regard to the second claim, the site was marketed by the Council. In support of this marketing exercise was a Transport Statement, prepared by PSP Consulting for Bidwells, on behalf of the Council’s Estates Department. The statement identifies that there is adequate 2m x2m pedestrian visibility splays at the point of access from the site onto Wynchwood Lane. There is no indication as to whether the access off Wynchwood Lane onto Ampthill Road would be suitable. Nevertheless, the statement concludes that there will be no objection from the highway authority to the residential redevelopment of the site. 10. Following the applicant’s purchase of the site, a pre-application enquiry was submitted to the Council for the demolition of the existing building and erection of 7 dwellings. In respect of issues pertaining to Highway Safety and Car Parking, the response was that the access route along Wynchwood Lane would be sufficient to allow two way traffic movements and with a footway of nearly 3m along Ampthill Road visibility at the junction meets design standards. I note that it does not specifically refer to driver/pedestrian or driver/driver inter-visibility. Nevertheless, given that these are fundamental highway safety considerations, it seems highly unlikely that both of these aspects were not considered. 11. There is no evidence that the development plan and any relevant guidance has changed since the marketing exercise was carried out and the pre-application advice given. The Council confirmed that the advice given was that of the individual officer at the time, who no longer works for the Council. Nevertheless, the advice given was on behalf of the Council. The appellant, understandably, submitted the application on the basis of this advice. 12. The current Council highways officer considers that the proposal does conflict with the development plan and relevant guidance. Whilst I appreciate that the pre-application advice is not binding upon the Council, it clearly indicates that Page 46
Page 47
Costs Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3210480 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 there would be no objection to the proposal on highways grounds. The sudden change in the Council’s position, which stemmed purely from a change in the highways officer considering the proposal, as confirmed by the Council, resulted in the application being refused and the subject appeal being lodged. I find that this sudden change in position without any reasonable justification, other than a difference of professional opinion between two Council officers, amounts to unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the Council. Such behaviour provides a great deal of uncertainty to the developer, particularly in this instance as the application was submitted with a justifiable expectation that it would be approved. 13. As I have found that the proposal would not result in any significantly harmful effect on highway safety, as a result of this unreasonable behaviour the appellant has incurred unnecessary costs in the appeal process. Conclusion 14. I conclude therefore that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified. Costs Order 15. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Central Bedfordshire Council shall pay to Mr Troy Mayer on behalf of Black Horse Residential Ltd., the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision. 16. The applicant is now invited to submit to Central Bedfordshire Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. INSPECTOR Page 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
Page 49
Page 50
2 In summary and as I outlined above, I require further information on the ecological and biodiversity interest (including trees, shrubs and grasslands) of the site in the form of a survey report with mitigation along with further information on public realm works in relation to the details of the plant selection in the Landscape Planting Plan, construction details of the path, flood management, protection of the water course and a Maintenance Plan for the public area. I look forward to receiving the results of the ecological surveys and the details of the Trees and Shrub Protection Plan and Landscape Planting Plan in order to provide further comment. If you require clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, - Marina Curran-Colthart, Local Biodiversity Officer, Argyll and Bute Council. https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/biodiversity technical note feb 2017 4.pdf https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/fi1es/2019- 09/Pol1inators%20in%20Planning%20and%20Construction%20Guide.pdf Page 50
Page 51
LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP LP MH MH MH MH MH MH MH MH P P P P P P BIN BIN BIN G G G G G G G G G G G T T T T T T T T T T T TT T T T TT IC IC BT BT BT BT BT BT BT IL FH TP MKR MKR MKR MKRMKRMKR RS RS BL BL BL BL BL BL BL CV JB JB 13.652 23.980 1A2.702 35.925 48.470 59.840 65.925 75.032 84.701 8A3.303 94.564 505.778 8B3.457 103.302 10A5.850 113.091 10B5.737 122.782 X13.024 8D3.834 8E3.614 8F3.638 518.531 525.534 8C3.887 691020N 691020N 691040N 691040N 691060N 691060N 691080N 691080N 691100N 691100N 691120N 691120N 691140N 691140N 691160N 691160N 691180N 691180N 691200N 691200N 691220N 691220N 691240N 691240N 691260N 691260N 691280N 691280N 691300N 691300N 691320N 691320N 223520E 223520E 223540E 223540E 223560E 223560E 223580E 223580E 223600E 223600E 223620E 223620E 223640E 223640E 223660E 223660E 223680E 223680E 223700E 223700E 223720E 223720E 223740E 223740E 223760E 223760E 223780E 223780E 223800E 223800E 0.33 0.44 0.58 0.77 0.97 1.35 1.77 1.86 1.48 1.08 0.85 0.70 0.61 0.49 0.34 0.61 0.73 0.84 1.10 1.45 1.95 2.11 1.51 1.10 1.03 0.75 0.51 0.58 0.440.50 0.67 0.65 0.66 1.02 1.17 1.52 2.062.04 1.54 1.21 1.00 0.78 0.75 0.59 0.74 0.79 0.87 0.96 1.21 1.70 2.03 3.56 3.58 3.65 3.68 3.71 3.71 3.78 3.75 3.78 3.68 3.70 3.66 3.67 3.57 3.57 3.88 3.87 3.76 2.78 2.78 2.33 2.67 3.73 3.17 3.21 3.63 3.08 3.33 3.71 3.77 3.81 3.96 3.70 3.88 3.74 3.54 3.36 3.24 3.02 3.24 3.60 3.68 3.79 3.78 3.91 3.30 2.68 2.71 3.25 3.55 3.31 3.37 2.79 3.83 3.60 3.71 3.63 3.67 3.41 3.54 3.53 3.57 3.43 3.67 3.32 3.11 2.27 1.28 2.28 1.26 2.58 2.93 3.47 1.35 1.33 1.34 3.75 3.88 3.91 3.80 3.63 3.48 3.56 3.51 2.62 2.25 2.31 2.24 2.24 2.28 2.402.50 2.67 2.58 2.43 2.51 2.20 2.39 2.34 2.36 2.23 2.18 2.18 2.06 2.01 1.61 2.00 2.21 1.52 1.15 1.24 1.27 1.30 1.30 1.28 1.25 1.38 1.18 1.34 1.16 1.26 1.77 1.37 1.36 1.37 1.38 1.33 1.28 1.60 2.17 3.07 2.43 3.09 2.77 3.32 1.45 1.40 1.54 1.48 1.31 1.26 1.30 1.52 1.51 1.81 1.82 1.84 1.83 1.84 1.81 1.98 1.99 2.00 2.14 2.20 2.27 1.73 1.32 1.53 1.53 1.55 1.52 1.62 1.74 1.56 1.21 1.84 1.86 1.32 2.09 4.60 5.17 5.80 6.29 6.81 7.18 7.72 8.618.60 7.85 7.16 6.58 6.11 5.56 4.96 4.31 3.12 2.38 4.37 4.93 5.46 6.06 6.60 6.05 5.29 4.44 3.80 3.20 3.25 3.42 3.92 4.84 4.58 5.32 3.68 1.95 1.88 3.02 2.21 2.24 2.08 2.88 3.28 3.68 3.42 3.07 2.48 2.22 1.94 2.15 1.57 1.89 1.57 1.76 1.89 5.02 5.43 6.04 5.93 6.37 6.33 7.12 7.36 7.53 7.65 7.65 7.72 7.74 7.84 7.89 8.10 7.81 7.62 7.42 7.17 6.84 6.35 5.81 5.22 4.72 4.58 5.16 5.75 6.33 7.03 7.24 7.47 7.71 7.99 8.13 7.84 7.61 7.38 7.29 6.42 6.50 6.12 5.39 4.58 4.575.59 4.59 5.07 4.30 3.79 3.78 3.72 5.16 4.08 4.62 3.78 4.33 3.75 4.68 5.26 5.84 7.13 7.34 7.57 7.81 8.09 7.07 6.76 6.86 9.54 9.41 9.31 9.59 10.13 10.21 10.70 10.73 10.41 9.97 9.41 8.85 9.60 9.20 8.69 8.25 8.09 8.35 8.88 9.43 9.98 10.44 10.65 10.60 10.17 9.74 10.95 10.78 10.53 10.12 9.59 9.01 8.538.45 8.98 9.53 10.09 10.54 10.70 10.27 9.84 10.64 10.83 10.68 10.78 10.62 10.26 10.08 10.01 9.96 9.91 9.94 10.43 9.17 8.18 7.22 6.38 10.04 10.15 10.40 7.29 8.61 9.69 9.61 7.26 6.48 8.46 7.67 7.11 6.83 9.10 9.84 9.20 9.17 9.09 9.85 8.67 7.50 6.71 9.71 8.58 7.75 7.17 6.326.42 6.67 6.37 6.29 6.26 6.43 6.14 6.01 6.77 6.47 6.40 6.38 5.87 5.80 5.53 5.12 4.91 4.92 4.97 4.94 4.92 4.93 6.27 6.14 6.00 5.93 5.63 5.22 5.01 5.02 5.07 5.01 5.20 5.35 5.53 5.69 5.78 5.88 6.02 6.21 5.90 5.95 5.82 5.68 5.63 5.46 5.25 5.11 5.05 5.03 5.04 5.12 5.31 5.49 5.67 5.83 5.92 6.03 6.34 5.11 5.26 5.42 4.90 4.85 5.04 4.80 6.00 6.09 6.57 6.34 6.40 6.22 4.70 4.74 5.23 5.23 5.34 5.70 5.10 5.07 5.25 5.47 5.73 6.18 6.19 6.01 5.24 5.56 5.30 5.13 5.23 5.31 5.25 5.50 5.37 5.19 5.11 5.06 5.24 5.04 5.145.14 5.09 4.99 5.01 5.36 5.16 5.25 5.41 5.15 5.29 5.02 5.04 5.38 4.79 4.76 4.78 5.15 5.33 5.12 4.98 4.86 4.94 5.19 5.23 5.25 5.09 4.95 4.90 4.68 4.37 3.90 3.90 3.58 3.58 3.54 3.63 3.85 4.11 4.95 4.75 4.78 4.81 4.83 4.82 4.87 4.79 4.78 4.81 4.76 4.73 4.70 4.69 4.68 4.73 4.72 4.72 4.88 4.88 4.76 4.74 4.72 4.78 4.77 4.99 4.96 4.72 4.66 4.66 4.67 4.86 5.01 4.734.72 4.70 4.81 4.48 4.33 3.85 3.813.77 3.72 4.04 4.99 4.82 3.93 3.66 4.46 4.35 4.91 4.86 4.82 4.79 4.79 4.76 4.75 4.74 4.79 4.82 4.82 4.04 6.03 4.90 4.01 3.66 3.67 3.94 4.79 6.13 6.17 5.76 5.74 3.81 5.71 5.05 3.26 3.08 2.89 2.69 3.52 5.70 6.11 5.78 5.67 5.69 5.79 5.60 3.13 3.42 3.12 3.25 3.42 3.73 4.36 5.56 3.82 2.76 3.00 2.96 3.21 2.11 2.12 2.22 2.392.72 2.64 2.74 2.46 2.15 2.13 2.21 3.21 5.71 5.69 5.77 5.86 5.99 6.00 5.59 5.76 5.80 5.77 5.755.77 5.79 5.84 5.88 5.89 5.87 5.67 5.64 5.65 5.67 5.71 5.78 5.77 5.79 5.78 4.38 3.68 3.70 4.81 3.69 3.653.52 4.18 5.35 5.43 5.72 5.67 5.68 5.88 5.77 5.83 5.79 5.81 5.82 5.83 5.72 5.50 5.64 5.35 6.35 6.43 6.79 6.78 7.17 7.45 7.67 7.80 3.48 3.47 3.29 3.36 3.17 3.30 3.45 3.51 3.52 3.46 3.20 3.07 2.97 2.91 2.98 3.06 3.18 3.30 3.55 3.15 2.87 2.92 3.04 3.47 2.852.01 1.94 2.08 2.76 2.90 2.89 3.00 2.95 1.93 1.94 4.41 4.60 4.48 4.42 2.89 2.81 2.76 2.72 2.60 2.95 2.80 1.91 2.00 1.96 1.88 2.01 2.06 2.14 2.15 2.49 2.50 2.69 2.66 2.71 2.43 2.47 2.45 1.51 1.71 1.38 2.12 2.51 2.50 1.99 1.93 2.18 2.00 2.45 2.43 2.56 2.52 2.59 2.39 3.25 3.07 2.98 2.96 2.98 2.93 3.47 2.79 2.75 2.41 2.433.39 3.16 2.22 3.19 3.07 3.01 3.08 3.14 3.40 3.39 2.45 2.45 2.39 3.21 3.33 3.32 3.49 2.88 2.84 2.78 2.61 2.58 2.14 2.69 2.70 2.78 3.39 3.62 3.85 3.48 3.88 4.13 5.22 4.23 3.40 2.87 2.91 2.82 2.83 5.40 5.19 2.69 2.84 2.85 3.13 3.87 3.62 3.51 3.39 3.66 3.52 4.29 3.13 2.93 2.95 2.83 2.48 3.74 3.86 4.05 4.88 5.49 4.63 4.40 5.13 5.98 5.13 5.52 6.54 7.99 5.62 6.16 6.98 8.03 7.96 8.53 8.88 8.99 6.35 7.60 8.24 8.38 7.26 8.80 8.52 7.84 7.16 7.77 8.56 8.19 7.21 6.45 5.96 4.38 4.92 5.18 5.12 5.55 5.275.64 5.825.95 5.60 5.55 5.28 3.97 3.62 3.76 3.14 3.34 3.33 2.72 2.80 4.20 2.40 2.54 2.38 4.14 2.42 2.89 1.85 9.04 9.12 3.15 3.53 2.94 2.67 8.53 8.33 8.79 4.495.40 3.48 3.29 3.38 3.16 3.10 3.00 2.99 4.62 4.60 4.38 5.09 4.68 3.774.27 4.23 4.25 4.80 3.13 4.60 4.73 3.15 4.73 3.94 4.63 4.32 4.34 4.86 5.00 4.75 2.262.69 2.92 1.99 2.15 1.90 2.41 2.27 2.78 2.30 2.30 2.34 2.22 dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey dense foliageunable to survey TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC CONCRETE SLABS CONCRETE TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS PEBBLES/BEACH PEBBLES/BEACH PEBBLES/BEACH PEBBLES/BEACH PEBBLES/BEACH GRASS GRASS PEBBLES PEBBLES PEBBLES PEBBLES DIRT PATH DIRT PATH DIRT PATH DIRT PATH DIRT PATH DIRT PATH GRASS GRASS GRASS pipes Top of Bank Bottom of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Bottom of Bank Bottom of Bank Bottom of Bank Bottom of Bank 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.51.51.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.02.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 5.5 10.5 10.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.52.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.02.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 D SC LIN WAY UPLAND QUEEN 'S CRESCENTW HISTLEFIELD ROAD 6m 11m B872 96m 22m 10m 50m 20m Path Oakfield 30m NorthFernicarry PW Fernicarry Farm NTL MLWS Bruach Chorrach A FB FB MHWS NTL Wood OR HOOL ROAD FE Sheepfold Tel Ex FAIRW O MCAUL TCYD ROAD Y SMIDD B872 Track School Primary Garelochhead LPY L B833 PO Park Public Bendarroch Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432 A3 Drawing Number: Project: Drawing Title: Issue Status: Revision: Date: Scale: Drawn By: DescriptionDate Revision Description Rev By THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8BN 01436 674 777 07816 907 203 www.mhplanning.co.uk Client: MH Planning Associates Mr Lorne Thompson Land at Garelochhead Site Location Plan 2019_0057-03 B April 2020 1:1250 and 1:10,000 @ A3 KM Planning l o c a t i o n p l a n scale 1:1250 @ A3 n o r t h Red line indicates extent of 'Application site' 0m 50m 100m10m 20m PS Scale Bar for 1:1250 s u p p l e m e n t a r y l o c a t i o n p l a n scale 1:10,000 @ A3 n o r t h 0m 1000m100m PS Scale Bar for 1:10,000 500m Apr '20 Point of Access Indicated A KM Site Area - 2.16ha New path New path New path New path Footbridge Blue line indicates extent of other land in ownership of the applicant Proposed Point of Access Oct '20 Red Line altered, house added B KM Page 51
Page 52
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 53
LP LP P T T T MKR BL BL 59.840 505.778 8B3.457 8D3.834 8E3.614 8F3.638 518.531 525.534 8C3.887 5.80 6.29 6.81 7.18 7.72 8.618.60 7.85 7.16 6.58 6.11 5.56 5.46 6.06 6.60 6.05 5.29 4.84 4.58 5.32 7.99 8.138.09 9.54 9.41 9.31 9.59 10.13 10.21 10.70 10.73 10.41 9.97 9.41 8.85 9.60 9.20 8.69 8.35 8.88 9.43 9.98 10.44 10.65 10.60 10.17 9.74 10.95 10.78 10.53 10.12 9.59 9.01 8.538.45 8.98 9.53 10.09 10.54 10.70 10.27 9.84 10.64 10.83 10.68 10.78 10.62 10.26 10.43 10.40 9.69 9.61 9.84 9.20 9.17 9.09 9.85 9.71 2.59 3.08 3.39 3.21 3.33 3.32 3.49 2.88 2.84 2.78 2.61 2.58 2.69 2.70 2.78 3.85 3.48 3.88 4.13 5.22 4.23 3.40 2.87 2.91 2.82 2.83 5.40 5.19 2.69 2.84 2.85 3.51 3.39 3.66 3.52 2.93 2.95 2.83 2.48 3.74 4.40 5.98 5.13 5.52 6.54 7.99 5.62 6.16 6.98 8.03 7.96 8.53 8.88 8.99 6.35 7.60 8.24 8.38 7.26 8.80 8.52 7.84 7.16 7.77 8.56 8.19 7.21 6.45 5.96 4.38 4.92 5.18 5.12 5.55 5.275.64 5.82 5.95 5.60 5.55 5.28 3.97 3.62 3.76 3.14 3.34 3.33 2.72 2.80 4.20 2.40 9.04 9.12 8.53 8.33 8.79 dense foliage unable to survey dense foliage unable to survey dense foliage unable to survey dense foliage unable to survey dense foliage unable to survey dense foliage unable to survey TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC TARMAC GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS GRASS Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank Top of Bank 10.5 10.5 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 A3 Drawing Number: Project: Drawing Title: Issue Status: Revision: Date: Scale: Drawn By: DescriptionDate Revision Description Rev By THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8BN 01436 674 777 07816 907 203 www.mhplanning.co.uk Client: MH Planning Associates Mr Lorne Thompson Land at Garelochhead Site Plan 2019_0057-04 A June 2020 1:500 @ A3 KM Planning s i t e p l a n scale 1:500 @ A3 Oct '20 Colour change to line A KM 0m 10m PS Scale Bar for 1:500 20m 30m 50m40m Site area less than 7.0m AOD is shaded red Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
INDICATIVE HOUSE LOCATION PROPOSED GRAVEL SURFACE PROPOSED WOODLAND MEADOW MIX PROPOSED BEE, BIRD AND BUTTERFLY MEADOW MIX REV A - 10/09/20 - CG/PRM LAYOUT UPDATED FOLLOWING COMMENTS FROM CLIENT ON 04/09/20. REV B - 15/09/20 - CG/PRM LEGEND AMENDED FOLLOWING COMMENTS FROM CLIENT ON 13/09/20. REV C - 17/09/20 - CG/PRM HOUSE FOOTPRINT AMENDED FOLLOWING COMMENTS RE- CIEVED ON 16/09/20. PROPOSED FOOTPATH PLANNING C PROPOSED NATIVE SHRUB HEDGING MIX. E.G: HOLLY, BEACH, BUCKTHORN & HONEYSUCKLE N.B: REFER TO DWG No. 1561-02 FOR PRECEDENT IMAGES AND ILLUSTRIONS Page 55
Page 56
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 57
PRECEDENT IMAGES: P R O P O S E D TR E E P LA N TIN G P R O P O S E D PATH S U R FA C E S P R O P O S E D H E D G E P LA N TIN G INDICATIVE HOUSING LAYOUT MEMORIAL EXAMPLE N.B: VISUAL OF HOUSE FOR INDICATIVE PURPOSED ONLY. SIZE AND STYLE MAY CHANGE. W ILD FLO W E R P LA N TIN G LAND AT GARELOCHHEADPLANNINGCG PRM 16/09/2020 PRECEDENT IMAGES1561-02 MR LORNE THOMPSON PROPOSED NATIVE TREE PLANTING SUCH AS BIRCH, FIELD MAPLE, HOLLY, HAWTHORN & BLACKTHORN TO SUPPORT LOCAL BIODIVERSITY AND ENCOURAGE WILDLIFE. PROPOSED PUBLIC FOOTPATH MATERIAL TO VARY FROM COMPACTED RECYCLED STONE, RECYCLED BARK MULCH AND MOWN GRASS. PROPOSED HEDGING TO CONTAIN A MIX- TURE OF NATIVE SPECIES SUCH AS; BEECH, HAWTHORN, HONEYSUCKLE & HOLLY TO HELP SUSTAIN LOCAL WILD- LIFE. PROPOSED INDICATIVE WILDFLOWER MEADOW MIX TO PROVIDE SEASONAL INTEREST AS WELL AS INCREASE BIODIVERSITY AND ENCOURAGE WILDLIFE. Page 57
Page 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 59
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF SINGLE DWELLINGHOUSE AT LAND WEST OF MCAULAY BURN, GARELOCHHEAD PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 20/01822/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0008/LRB 3rd MAY 2024 Page 59 Agenda Item 3b
Page 60
STATEMENT OF CASE The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellants are Mr Lorne Thomson (‘the appellants’) and their agent is Mr Michael Hyde (‘the agent’). The planning application, reference number 20/01822/PP, for the erection of a dwellinghouse at land west of McAulay burn, Garelochhead (“the appeal site”) was refused under delegated powers on the 12th March 2024. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application site is located within the settlement of Garelochhead within an area of open space. 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. SITE HISTORY The planning history of the site and locality is detailed in Section D of the Report of Handling and includes one previous application which was withdrawn. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application. STATEMENT OF CASE Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows:- - Whether the proposed location and siting is harmful to the character and amenity of the green space and identified open space and whether the public open space enhancements are sufficient to justify the proposal contrary to policy. - Whether the proposed location and siting of the proposed development have sufficient regard to the context of their setting. - Whether there is sufficient evidence with regard to the impacts on biodiversity. The Report of Handling (attached) sets out the Council’s assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. Page 60
Page 61
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is considered that no new information has been raised in the appellants’ submission. The issues raised were covered in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix 1, including a summary of the representations submitted from 8 objectors. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal is small-scale, has no complex or challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant body of conflicting representation, then it is considered that a Hearing is not required. COMMENT ON APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION Having regard to the detailed reasons for requesting the review set out in part (7) of the appellants’ submission the following points are noted: 1. The appellant has set out an alternative case to the matters considered by officers in setting out Reason for Refusal no. 1 which considers the whether the proposal is harmful to the open space. The appellant’s agent argues that the application site would result in the loss of just 5.5% of the overall Open Space Protection Area. The agent argues that the original pre-application advice was that the public realm enhancements were significant in contrast with the assessment within the Report of Handling which states the benefits are modest. It is noted that officer’s assessment of this aspect of the proposal is set out within Section P of the main report of handling and is primarily addressed under the sub- section headed ‘Open Space Protection Area’. This sub-section highlights the relevant policy considerations and includes commentary on the relevance of other developments referenced by the appellant as these matters were also highlighted as supporting information to the planning application. The planning officer reports states “The loss of a significant part of the OSPA within this parcel would harm the amenity of the settlement, for residents and visitors.” Therefore, despite arguments made by the appellant that the amount of open space is small, the planning officer argues that it is a significant part of the OSPA. Members should note that the location of the open space within the wider context is vital in the assessment of whether the loss is acceptable, not just merely the area of the open space to be lost. Also, it should be noted that at pre-application stage there is not a full assessment of all matters and often there is no site visit, and guidance is given to an applicant and it has no bearing on the final decision made following a full assessment of all matters. It is agreed that it is not correct to say there would be no mechanism to secure the proposed public realm enhancements and a planning obligation, could secure the delivery of the enhancements. At no time did the planning officer say that this was not the case. In fact the report clearly states “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” fully acknowledging that if we found the proposal acceptable then negotiation would take place to secure this legal agreement. Members are drawn to the point that, even if the enhancements were secured via a legal agreement, it is not considered that these enhancements would outweigh the effects of the fragmentation and reduction of the informal recreation space, contrary to policy. Page 61
Page 62
2. The appellant has set out their views on the potential impact on biodiversity. It is noted that officer’s assessment of this aspect of the proposal is set out within Section P of the main report of handling and is primarily addressed under the sub-sections headed ‘Natural Environment’. We would not dispute that planning conditions can be used to secure re-surveys or clarification on impacts in relation to species and trees on a site. Indeed the planning officer recognises that a condition could be used to secure additional planting and to secure ecological surveys. However, in relation to biodiversity, it should be noted that NPF4 and the newly adopted LDP2, give added protection to biodiversity given the biodiversity crisis, hence why the officer states that a precautionary approach is applied given there was insufficient information to assess the proposal against these new policies. Given the application was to be refused, then it was not considered appropriate to request the surveys prior to determination. 3. The appellant has set out their view in relation to potential impact on flood risk. It is noted that officer’s assessment of this aspect of the proposal is set out within Section P of the main report of handling and is primarily addressed under the sub-section headed ‘Flood Risk’ and there are no objections with regard to flood risk and this is not a reason for refusal. The appellant is merely drawing members attention to the Flood Risk Assessment which is listed within the Supporting Documents Section G of the report. CONCLUSION Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1997 requires that all decisions be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At the time the decision was made, the ‘Development Plan’ for Argyll and Bute (excluding the area covered by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority) was and still is the National Planning Framework 4 and LDP2 which require to be applied holistically with preference afforded to LDP2, as the most recent expression of policy, in the event of any conflict between the two policy documents. For the avoidance of doubt, it is also confirmed that the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and its associated Supplementary Guidance are now superseded and accordingly should not be afforded significant material weight in planning determinations. Summary Commentary on Key Material Considerations: Whether the development is harmful to this greenfield site designated as an Open Space Protection Area LDP2 Policy 81 states that development proposals resulting in the loss of Open Space Protection Areas will not be permitted except for circumstances in the list provided in the policy – in particular that there would be no loss of amenity value it provides through either partial, or complete development. NPF4 Policy 9 sets out 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. Page 62
Page 63
Whilst this site is within the settlement area for Garelochhead, the site is greenfield and part of an Open Space Protection Area. The site has been eroded by removal of trees and unauthorised dumping of material, but nevertheless, it serves to provide valuable amenity space to the village. The proposal results in a new loss and fragmentation of open space. The proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to NPF4 policies 1, 9, 14, 16, 20 and 21 and LDP2 Policies 04, 05, 06, 26 and 81. Whether the development is appropriately sited in keeping with the local character of Garelochead. The site is located within the village of Garelochead identified as Settlement Area in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 2024 (LDP2) wherein the provisions of Policy 01 serve to give encouragement in principle for development. Within the settlement zone, LDP2 Policy 01 sets out a general presumption in support of development provided that such development is appropriately sited, is of a scale and design which fits within the context of the locale, is compatible with the character and amenity of its surrounds and, does not give rise to adverse access or servicing implications. Whilst this site is within the settlement area for Garelochhead, which has some potential to accommodate a residential development, the officers have reached a view that the siting of the dwellinghouse proposed does not satisfactorily respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The character of the area is ribbon development along the west of the B833 with no development interrupting this side of the road. The site is in an isolated position on the eastern side of the road and would be starkly and incongruous with the established settlement pattern. It is at the top of the slope and cuts across the open space. The proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 14, and LDP2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 08 and 10. Whether the development protects and enhances the biodiversity of the local area. LDP2 policy 73 states that when considering proposals that full consideration needs to be given to species protected by the Wildlife and Conservation Act 1981, the Protection of Badgers Act and the Conservation Regulations 1994. NPF4 Policy 3 says that any potential adverse impact on biodiversity, nature networks and the natural environment will be minimised though careful planning and design and Policy 4 states a precautionary principle will be applied in accordance with relevant legislation and proposals likely to have an adverse effect on species will only be supported where the proposal meets the relevant statutory tests. In this instance, there is a lack of ecological information on the condition of the existing site and given it is an open space site with a nearby watercourse then a precautionary approach has been taken in this regard. The proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to NPF4 Polices 3 and 4, and LDP2 Policies 06 and 73. Page 63
Page 64
Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the request for a review be dismissed. Appended documents: Report of Handling Page 64
Page 65
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 65
Page 66
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 66
Page 67
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 67
Page 68
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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
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 70
Page 71
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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
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 73
Page 74
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 74
Page 75
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 75
Page 76
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 76
Page 77
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 77
Page 78
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 78
Page 79
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 79
Page 80
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 80
Page 81
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 81
Page 82
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 82
Page 83
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 83
Page 84
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 84
Page 85
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 85
Page 86
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 Page 86
Page 87
From: Planning.North To: Planning.Handl Cc: Innis, Lynsey Subject: PCS-20001342 SEPA Response to 20/01822/PPP Date: 02 May 2024 09:44:59 Attachments: image.png To Whom It May Concern Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 20/01822/PPP Site for the erection of dwellinghouse and public realm enhancements Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead, Argyll and Bute SEPA have reviewed the information provided. We note that flood risk was not a reason for refusal, however, our response of 12 January 2024 remains our position. We further note that the request for review refers to a previous response from SEPA. 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 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 87
Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 89
From: Neil Feggans To: Innis, Lynsey Subject: RE: Notice of Request for Review 24/0008/LRB: Planning Application 20/01822/PPP -Erection of Dwellinghouse & Public Realm Enhancements, Land East Of Taliesin West, Garelochhead [03090] Date: 25 April 2024 12:50:37 Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png Thanks, Lynsey. I briefly read through the appellant’s case, focussing on those parts relevant to public access, so missed the reference to the English case. I intentionally used the words “it seems, in error, you included with your notification..” in case I had overlooked a reference to the English case in the Review documentation. J Kind regards, Neil. Neil Feggans Access Officer I work part-time: usually on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society (ScotWays) 24 Annandale Street, Edinburgh EH7 4AN tel: 0131 558 1222 web: www.scotways.com follow us on Twitter: @ScotWays find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/scotways Safeguarding Public Access in Scotland since 1845 A company limited by guarantee, registered in Scotland Company number SC024243 Registered office as above Scottish Charity number SC015460 From: Innis, Lynsey Sent: 25 April 2024 12:37 To: Neil Feggans Subject: RE: Notice of Request for Review 24/0008/LRB: Planning Application 20/01822/PPP -Erection of Dwellinghouse & Public Realm Enhancements, Land East Of Taliesin West, Garelochhead [03090] Good afternoon Mr Feggans Thank you for the very prompt response to my email of 23 April 2024 in relation to the above Notice of Request for Review. I can confirm that document 4, is in fact referred to within the applicants case, please see paragraph 1.11 of the Grounds for Review document and has therefore not been included in error. I will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration by the Local Review Body, when it meets to consider the case. Kind Regards Lynsey From: Neil Feggans <Neil_Feggans@Scotways.com> Sent: 25 April 2024 10:53 To: Innis, Lynsey <Lynsey.Innis@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Notice of Request for Review 24/0008/LRB: Planning Application 20/01822/PPP -Erection of Dwellinghouse & Public Realm Enhancements, Land East Of Taliesin West, Garelochhead [03090] Page 89
Page 90
Good morning Ms. Innis, Thank you for notifying ScotWays of the receipt of the above Notice of Review. ScotWays has no substantive comment to make on the Review, as whether or not the development forming the subject of it takes place will have no significant impact, positive or negative, on public access resources in Garelochehead. In case you are not already aware of it, it seems, in error, you included with your notification of review letter a document (Document 4) pertaining to the decision of a Planning Inspector to award costs in an English case. Kind regards, Neil. Neil Feggans Access Officer I work part-time: usually on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society (ScotWays) 24 Annandale Street, Edinburgh EH7 4AN tel: 0131 558 1222 web: www.scotways.com follow us on Twitter: @ScotWays find us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/scotways Safeguarding Public Access in Scotland since 1845 A company limited by guarantee, registered in Scotland Company number SC024243 Registered office as above Scottish Charity number SC015460 From: Innis, Lynsey Sent: 23 April 2024 10:23 To: Bain, Peter (Planning); Sweeney, Kirsty; Lilburn, Robert; David.Cameron@jbaconsulting.com; Alexandra.Maskell@jbaconsulting.com; McKenzie, Sheila; planning.north@sepa.org.uk; planning.sw@sepa.org.uk; Lodge, Mark Kane, Raymond planningconsultations@scottishwater.co.uk; DIO-Safeguarding-Statutory@mod.gov.uk; Gritten, Jolyon Info <info@Scotways.com> Cc: localreviewprocess McLean, Abby Subject: Notice of Request for Review - Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead (Ref: 24/0008/LRB) [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Good morning, Please find attached the Notice of Request for Review (AB3 – 240008LRB), together with a copy of the request for review and supporting documentation in respect of the above case. Please note that any representations must be received by Tuesday, 7 May 2024, being 14 days after then date of this notice. Kind Regards Page 90
Page 91
Lynsey Innis Senior Committee Assistant Legal and Regulatory Support Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 604338 Email: lynsey.innis@argyll-bute.gov.uk Argyll and Bute – Realising our potential together For information on how we manage your data under the General Data Protection Regulations please click on the following link:- https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/data-protection Argyll and Bute Council's e-mail system (also used by LiveArgyll) classifies the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. All communications sent to or from Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation. This email has been scanned for viruses, vandals and malicious content. Argyll and Bute Council's e-mail system (also used by LiveArgyll) classifies the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is Page 91
Page 92
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 93
From: NICHOLAS BEEVERS To: Innis, Lynsey Subject: Re: Notice of Request for Review - Land East of Taliesin West, Garelochhead (Ref: 24/0008/LRB) [OFFICIAL] Date: 24 April 2024 14:42:49 Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png Dear Lynsey - Thank you for your email. My response is as follows: Further to my initial two objections (version 1 without and version 2 with so called public realm enhancements) against this planning application, I support the council's decision to deny planning permission in principle for this development. Protection of the open space protection area for Garelochhead is an inspiring decision by the planners and will be a relief to the ~150 objectors who cherish the open space the area provides and the contribution the area makes to the visual amenity of Garelochhead. The extensive report submitted by the planning consultants does not justify a change of decision as the applicant was never guaranteed anything by the council and the applicant accepted the risk that comes with buying land with no grounds for planning. On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:23 AM Innis, Lynsey wrote: Classification: OFFICIAL Good morning, Please find attached the Notice of Request for Review (AB3 – 240008LRB), together with a copy of the request for review and supporting documentation in respect of the above case. Please note that any representations must be received by Tuesday, 7 May 2024, being 14 days after then date of this notice. Kind Regards Lynsey Innis Senior Committee Assistant Legal and Regulatory Support Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 604338 Page 93
Page 94
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 95
From: localreviewprocess To: Innis, Lynsey Subject: FW: Planning Application 20/01822/PPP Date: 29 April 2024 14:04:07 -----Original Message----- From: Alistair McIntyre Sent: 29 April 2024 13:31 To: localreviewprocess <localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Planning Application 20/01822/PPP Dear Sir/Madam, With regard to Planning Application 20/01822/PPP and Local Review Body Ref. 24/0008/LRB, I wish to make comment as follows below. First of all, I welcome and applaud the decision of Argyll and Bute Council to refuse the application to build a dwelling-house on the site, described as Land to the East of Taliesin West. With the whole area in question being designated as Open Space Protection Area, the decision is clearly the correct one. Further to my earlier representations on this planning application, I'd like to make additional comment as follows. There has been further damage to the larger site in question. More broad-leaved trees have been cut down. A number of these were a little downstream of the road bridge across the McAulay Burn. Trees often afford some mutual protection against the wind, and it may be that with those gone, the thin line of trees a little downstream has been rendered more liable to windthrow, and indeed several have toppled in recent months. Another effect of the cutting down of the trees is that, for those coming from the direction of the road from the Peninsula, the approach to Garelochhead has lost any sylvan character. With a view now dominated by a large assortment of cars and other vehicles in the compound on the other side of the McAulay Burn, as well as the former Telephone Exchange, neither of which is a pretty sight, Garelochhead can now be interpreted as a strictly utilitarian place. Also further to my previous comments, huge amounts of poor quality soil have been moved on to the larger site. This material evidently has a high clay content, and it has smothered attractive plants such as wild hyacinth and ground-nut. Coarse species like dockens and dandelions are already establishing themselves in their place. In addition, at least one access/egress point for an informal trod path has been obliterated in the process. Whether by accident or design, a number of sections of large tree trunks have appeared on the wider site, close to the public road, in recent months. The site has clearly suffered a great deal of degradation over the past few years. Despite this, however, the area continues to be very popular with walkers, as it has been for many years, and long may this continue. Yours sincerely, Alistair McIntyre. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com --- ________________________________ Argyll and Bute Council classify the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. The adopted classifications are: Page 95
Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 97
MH Planning Associates 63 West Princes Street, Helensburgh, G84 8BN Tel: 01436 674777 Mob: 07816 907203 Web: www.mhplanning.co.uk Email: info@mhplanning.co.uk 16 May 2024 Lynsey Innis Senior Committee Assistant Legal and Regulatory Support Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead PA31 8RT Ref MHP: 2019_0057 Dear Lynsey REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF A SINGLE DWELLINGHOUSE, LAND WEST OF MCAULAY BURN, GARELOCHHEAD (LPA REFERENCE 20/01822/PPP) I refer to your e-mail dated 8 May 2024 inviting comments regarding the representations received in connection with the above application for review. My response is as follows. Is the application proposal harmful to the open space? As noted in the appellant’s Grounds for Review the application now under consideration by the Local Review Body was submitted in October 2020. The application should therefore have been determined in February 2021 (2 months from the date of the submission). At the date of the submission of the application the site was not within an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA). It was however in an Area for Action (AFA), and the focus of the AFA designation was to consider options to effectively manage and visually enhance this important recreation and open space area within the village. It is for this reason that the applicant proposes, as an integral part of his application proposals the landscaping and ongoing management the remainder of his land, for the long term benefit of the local community. Officer say that the application proposal would result in the loss of a “significant part of the OSPA”. As noted in the Grounds for Review the proposed house plot equates to just 5.5% of the total area of OSPA. It is difficult to therefore understand how the loss of this could be “significant” when 94.5% of the OSPA would remain open and accessible to members of the public. Over and above the proposed house plot the applicant owns a further 21% of the Page 97 Agenda Item 3c
Page 98
Page 2 of 3 OSPA. This area of land will be significantly enhanced, by the applicant, for the benefit of everyone who uses it. The enhancements proposed include improvements to the network of informal footpaths through the site, the implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management, the formation of wild flower meadows and the facilitation of a site the erection of a memorial to those lives lost when HMS K13 sank in Gare Loch in 1917. The proposed public realm enhancements, which would be funded entirely by the applicant, can be secured through the imposition of a planning condition or by entering into a Section 75 Planning Obligation. On this key issue the members of the Local Review Body are entitled to conclude that on balance the benefits of the public realm enhancements that are being proposed outweigh the loss of what is in reality a very small part of the overall OSPA. This was clearly the opinion of the Planning Officer who provided the initial pre- application advice. He said in 2019 that “it is my view that there is significant community benefit by way of upgrading of footpaths, new public realm areas and the new memorial. I place significant weight on these considerations and consider the proposal subject to a full planning assessment, acceptable”. Is the application proposal harmful to biodiversity? The application site is not specifically designated for its biodiversity value. Notwithstanding this, whist the review application was under consideration by Officer’s, the applicant was asked to survey the site for any signs of otters, bats, birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, amphibians and fish! As the applicant had been advised by the Planning Officer that the application was going to be recommended for refusal in principle he did not, for very understandable reasons, want to commit to the not insignificant costs associated with the survey of the site for such a long list of species. The applicant has no objections to undertaking the requested wildlife surveys but would only feel comfortable in committing to doing so if the Local Review Body were able to confirm that the application would be able to be approved in principle. In this context, the applicant is pleased to note that the Planning Officer has now stated that a planning condition could be used in order to secure both additional planting and ecological surveys. Under this heading Officers have referred specifically to Policy 3 of the National Planning Framework (NPF). This states that development proposals will contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. The applicant is proposing a significant programme of tree and shrub planting, and the formation of wildflower meadows, on his land. All of these Page 98
Page 99
Page 3 of 3 measures will significantly increase the overall biodiversity value of the application site, in accordance with the requirements of the NPF. As was noted in the Grounds for Review, the applicant is already committed to an ongoing programme of works to eradicate Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica syn. Fallopia japonica) from his land. To date approximately an acre or previously inaccessible land has been cleared this very invasive species, which was in the region of 10 feet high and spreading. The Council’s own Biodiversity Action Plan recognises the danger to the natural environment, should Japanese knotweed be allowed to spread. Conclusion In conclusion it is considered that the review application can be approved as a ‘minor departure’ from the provisions of Policy 81 of the recently adopted Local Development Plan 2 on the basis of the significant community benefit that would accrue by way of the proposed improvements to the network of informal footpaths through the site, the implementation of a scheme of tree planting and woodland management, the formation of wild flower meadows and the facilitation of a site for the erection of the K13 memorial, all of which would be funded by the applicant. I trust that this is sufficient for your needs however please do not hesitate to let me know if you wish me to provide more information on any point. Yours sincerely Michael Hyde MRTPI MH Planning Associates Page 99
Page 100
This page is intentionally left blank