Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 June 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 20 June 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 13 June 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 20 JUNE 2024 at 9:30 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 WEST OF STRATHHOLM, CLACHAN, TARBERT (REF: 24/0009/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 92) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 93 - 114) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 115 - 116) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 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 100515684-011 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 b3a john bol Bath Street 272 G2 4JR UK Glasgow 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 Lee Argyll and Bute Council Wheeler Cherwell Green 10 NN5 7LL Land West of Stratholm UK 656292 Northampton 176874 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 siting of 2 temporary caravans (retrospective), erection of timber storage shed (retrospective) installation of sewage treatment plant, formation of car parking area and associated works please refer to attached statement 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 supporting statement and relevant letters and emails 21/02691/PP 26/01/2024 By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates 16/12/2021 To fully appreciate the issues involved 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 john bol Declaration Date: 20/12/2022 Page 7
Page 8
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan b3a Planning Application Appeal Statement Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Argyll The application site is situated within the Argyll and Bute Council boundary. The location of the site is Land to the West of Stratholm, Clachan, Argyll Planning Application Ref. 21/02691/PP Reasons for Local Review: Timeline: 16th December 2021 Application submitted via the eplanning web portal and application fee of £401 paid. 23rd December 2021 Email sent to Argyll and Bute Council regarding registration of application, informed the registration team were dealing with a high volume of applications and were dealing with applications submitted on 3rd December and would be in contact when they got to our application. 13th January 2021 Letter received asking for a fee of £203 for a local advertisement and duly paid by the applicant on 17th January. Also requested that jpeg format drawings be converted to pdf and requested to clarify the mains water arrangements. We replied to this request also on 17th January. 25th January 2021 Further letter requesting the following: Roof plan is not consistent with plan and elevations- it was confirmed to be consistent. Amendment of red line to include roadway out with our boundary Amendment of scale on one drawing Plans and elevations of temporary cabins which have been on site for many years of 1 7 Page 8
Page 9
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan b3a Information submitted on 4th February 2022 10th February 2022: Application registered with a formal decision to be given within 2 months of this date ( 10 April 2022) March 2022: Various phone calls regarding the application went unanswered. 4th April 2022: Phone calls and emails asking for an update on the application - no reply 10th April 2022 No correspondence in relation to extending the formal decision period from the council. 28th April 2022: Letter from the planner, no mention of not meeting deadline, but list of issues to be resolved: Flood risk assessment requested although property 6m above watercourse, but asking in regard to a small watercourse feeding into the main burn. An issue with the temporary buildings on site left by previous owners of the site Request for a site specific FRA Three weak deadline to provide the above information. 5th May 2022: Reply to the above points ( this was not uploaded to the web portal ) 7th June 2022: Asked for confirmation they had received our letter of 5th May and requested a reply and reasons for the delay in this application. No written reply. 26th June 2022: of 2 7 Page 9
Page 10
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan b3a After telephone call with planning officer, realised my letter of 7th June had not been passed to SEPA or JB Consulting ( and not on planning portal), so I attempted to contact them directly. 12th July 2022: Reply from SEPA, unable to provide 1 in 200 year flood level as well as JBA Consulting acting on behalf of Argyll and Bute Council as Flood Risk Consultant as this is relevant to determine that soil infill is not within the 1 in 200 year flood levels. 28th July 2022: After investigations reply to SEPA 3rd August 2022 Begin to obtain quotes from professional engineers regarding flood risk to include modelling of the small watercourse and hillside. ( we still do not have a flood level at this point ) 8th September 2022 After receiving quotations from a series of Engineers the cost to carry out this work was deemed too expensive at tens of thousands of pounds with no guarantee of planning approval as a conclusion. Informed the planning officer that we cannot provide a flood risk and could they please determine the application 7th December 2022: Lodged an appeal to Scottish Government for non determination, which was accepted but later rejected as Argyll + Bute objected due to the timescale being over the allowed 3 months after the proposed decision date, and was advised to submit to the Local Review Body, which was also rejected on Friday 23rd December which was a very timely rejection which was not appreciated and very unprofessional, and again due to the timescale , please refer to the email dated 10 January 2023 with a fuller explanation for the reason behind the delay. 10th January 2023 Email to Fiona MacCallum requesting confirmation that the application will not be going to the LRB, so we can contact the minister responsible for planning at Holyrood to explain our situation. No reply received but a phone call was received from Peter Bain in Planning asking to give him time to investigate the application and get back to me, this was agreed. of 3 7 Page 10
Page 11
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan b3a I also explained to him that Argyll + Bute and JBA Consulting have not been able to provide since the application commenced a 200 year flood level for the site. 1February 2023 Peter Bain advised that A+B Roads and Infrastructure may have the flood level information required. ( how are we suppose to know this !!!) We cannot get a quote from Flood Engineers without this item of information. It should be noted that the email from Peter Bain dated 30th January confirmed that ABC did not provide the information requested in respect to a 1 in 200 year flood level as is legally required through this process and therefor it was impossible for the applicant to provide such information which was still not being made available 12 months after the application was submitted, although requested on many occasions. 1March 2023 Revised proposal raising the building by approximately 1750mm to alleviate possible flooding issues. 20 April 2023 Chased Peter Bain regarding proposal to raise building 3rd May 2023 Email received in relation to raising building stating that a new planning application would be required as it would be deemed as a material change. 16th July 2023 Informed the planing department , that we were developing a flood barrier scheme for the site 22 July 2023 A flood barrier scheme was submitted for comment with the recommendation of flood risk details being fully submitted as part of the conditions to enable the applicant to have full confidence of an approval before expended a large sum of money for flood design work, as we have had no feedback from the planning department of 4 7 Page 11
Page 12
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan b3a 25 August 2023 Email to planning department asking why no documents had been uploaded to the portal since January 2023 19th September 2023 SEPA letter stating that because NPF4 was no in place they could not consider the flood barrier system as it was in contravention of NFP 4 10th December 2023 As no further correspondence with planning write to them asking to determine the application one way or another. 26 January 2024 Planing refused. Information provided: We have attached all the correspondence as listed above and subsequent Email trails and information related from SEPA and JBA Consulting. Further observations: It is now 24 months since submitting a planning application for a single dwelling, although registration was a long process and the application did not get registered until 10th February 2022 ( 8 weeks after applying) the main issues of contention were not raised until the 28th April, which was two weeks after the official decision date, and it took time to finally realise the main reason of objection in regards to flood risk was not the main watercourse but a small watercourse which fed into the main burn. It became even more frustrating that SEPA or JBA Consulting were not willing to provide the 1:200 flood levels for the site ( this is required to produce an FRA) nor provide the evidence of the flooding to the small watercourse , when we eventually managed to obtain the evidence it was not independently verified and was obtained from a previous application objector, this information was not submitted as part of this application. Conclusions: of 5 7 Page 12
Page 13
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan b3a Although we are fully aware that planning approval is not guaranteed for any application, we would expect a level of cooperation during the process to get to a rational decision, especially as planning approval was granted in 2010 for a single dwelling on this site. In this case the process and coordination by the planning department has been slow and inconsistent with the consultations being unhelpful and blocking of necessary information. It should also be bourne in mind that this application has been mishandled from inception through to its conclusion, with the lack of an accurate 1:200 year flood level being at the heart of the issues, which was not received until 18 months after the application was submitted, it should also be noted that we were confident that there were no issues with flooding from the Clachan Burn as the proposal was 6 m above the burn and we were unaware of the flooding issues with the small burn to the East of the site, as was SEPA until they were informed by flood risk consultants from ABC, which at the time was unacceptable as there was no verification of the evidence, and this is the sole reason for refusal. Even after we obtained the interpolated flood level, which indeed revealed that flooding from the clachan burn was not an issue, but the small burn to the East of the site was, not indeed in relation to a flood level but in relation to a photograph taken by an objector in relation to a previous scheme, and SEPA requested that we have consultants calculate the flood water from the immediate hillside , which to model this is time consuming and as such expensive. As an attempt to satisfy SEPA we prepared a preliminary flood defence system to cater for any eventuality, to be told that that flood defences were not now acceptable under NFP4, even although our application was submitted well in advance of NFP4 become live. The purpose of the flood design was to enable the planing authority to condition the flood risk, so a suitable design could be formulated to satisfy SEPA, knowing that we had approval for the house and worth the expenditure required as we were not informed that the design was suitable in planning terms. We have not had any observations from the planning department against the suitability of the proposal in terms of design, which is why the applicant was reluctant to pay large design fees as there was no guarantee that the proposals would be approved. The final conclusion that the proposed flood defences were contrary to NFP4 after two years of chasing shadows, was both insulting and disappointing. of 6 7 Page 13
Page 14
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan b3a As the application was not determined on the 10th April 2022 and a letter requesting an extension was also not issued together with the fact that ABC blocked the Appeal for non determination to the Scottish Government as we were attempting to resolve the flood risk issues, we respectfully request that this application be considered fully and independently by the Local Review Board and hopefully enable the applicant to establish their home in Clachan and be integrated into the local community. John Bol b3a of 7 7 Page 14
Page 15
From: Antwi, Tiwaah P TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk Subject: RE: APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan [OFFICIAL] Date: 13 December 2023 at 09:52 To: Cc: Bain, Peter (Planning) Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk, Bowker, Bryn Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk Classifica(on: OFFICIAL Good morning John, Thanks for the update. I can confirm the report of handling has now been amended and sent off to Bryn for signing therefore, you should be ge@ng a decision in due course on the applicaAon. Kind regards, Tiwaah Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council 01546604035 Awaahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk www.abplace2b.scot Further detail on Planning Service Status is available on the Council website. BriAsh Sign Language (BSL) users can contact me direct by using contactSCOTLAND-BSL From: Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2023 10:41 PM To: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Cc: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan [OFFICIAL] Apologies for the delay in ge@ng back to you regarding the above applicaAon, but I have been ill for quite a few weeks. Afer discussing with the applicant, as stated within the flooding statement, we were hoping to achieve an approval with a condiAon with regard to the possible flooding, but as this does not seem to be an opAon at this stage and the applicant is unwilling to pay out in the region of £10,000 + for an FRA to cover the hillside in quesAon, with no guarantee of planning approval as no indicaAon has been forthcoming, they would prefer to take the applicaAon to appeal and failing that to go to the Court of Session. Therefor can you please determine the applicaAon as you see fit. regards Page 15
Page 16
john bol b3a On 13 Sep 2023, at 11:05, Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classifica(on: OFFICIAL Hi John, Just a quick update on the above applicaAon sAll waiAng on SEPA to revert. A consultee response has been received from the Council’s Flood risk officer who sAll recommends defer decision unAl a FRA has been submiled – a copy of the full response is available on the planning portal for your perusal. I shall awaiAng SEPA’s response. Kind regards, Tiwaah Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council 01546604035 Awaahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk www.abplace2b.scot Further detail on Planning Service Status is available on the Council website. BriAsh Sign Language (BSL) users can contact me direct by using contactSCOTLAND-BSL <image001.png> From: Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 2:20 PM To: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Cc: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [2018s0548] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] [OFFICIAL] Thank you regards john bol b3a On 29 Aug 2023, at 11:31, Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll- bute.gov.uk> wrote: Page 16
Page 17
Classifica(on: OFFICIAL Hi John, Having reviewed the file this morning I note the documents were uploaded but had not been made publicly available. I have now made the most recent files publicly available and will await SEPA and our flood officer’s feedback on the submiled plans and revert. Kind regards, Tiwaah Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council 01546604035 Awaahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk www.abplace2b.scot Further detail on Planning Service Status is available on the Council website. BriAsh Sign Language (BSL) users can contact me direct by using contactSCOTLAND-BSL <image001.png> From: Sent: Friday, August 25, 2023 4:58 PM To: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Cc: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [2018s0548] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Can you let me know why no documents have been uploaded on to the web portal since January 2023 please. ? regards john bol b3a On 22 Jul 2023, at 09:45, wrote: Tiwaah, We have submiled addiAonal informaAon in regardto the flooding at the above site for your considerAon. Any queries please let me know Page 17
Page 18
Any queries please let me know. regards john bol b3a On 3 May 2023, at 13:20, Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classifica(on: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Good morning Jon and Peter, Having considered the applicaAon and reviewed the submiled revised proposal, I can confirm that the proposed ground level increase of 1750mm would be deemed a material change and would therefore trigger the need for a new applicaAon. Furthermore, with the adopAon of NPF4 and changes to SEPA’s requirements in line with the current policies, I would advise that you contact SEPA ahead of any resubmission. In view of the above, I would appreciate a response on how you would like to progress with the applicaAon by 12th May 2023. I look forward to hear from you. Kind regards, Tiwaah Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council 01546604035 Awaahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk <image008.png><image009.png> From: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 20 April 2023 17:42 Page 18
Page 19
To: Cc: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll- bute.gov.uk> Subject: RE: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [2018s0548] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Classifica(on: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Evening Jon, Apologies I have missed your email of 1st March in my inbox. The proposed amendment to site levels will require to be reviewed on site and I will request that Tiwaah has at a look at this when she’s next passing the applicaAon site to consider i) the general acceptability of the proposal to increase the overall height of the building above exisAng ground levels, and ii) whether this can be accommodated within the context of the current applicaAon as a non-material amendment or whether a fresh applicaAon would be required. Regards, <image011.png>Peter Bain Development Manager Development & Economic Growth, Argyll and Bute Council. t: 01546 604204 e: peter.bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk w: www.argyll-bute.gov.uk For details of any disrupAon to service delivery and amended ways of working Click Here <image012.png>follow us on Twiler hlps://twiler.com/abc_planning If you have any comments or wish to Page 19
Page 20
y y make a suggesAon, please fill in our online Customer SaAsfacAon QuesAonnaire <image013.jpg><image014.jpg> <image003.jpg> From: om> Sent: 20 April 2023 14:52 To: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll- bute.gov.uk> Subject: Fwd: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [2018s0548] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Peter, We would be grateful if you could replay to my email dated1 March 2023, so we can proceed with this application please. regards john bol b3a Begin forwarded message: From: m Subject: Re: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [2018s0548] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Page 20
Page 21
MARKED] Date: 1 March 2023 at 12:01:32 GMT To: "Bain, Peter (Planning)" <Peter.Bain@argyll- bute.gov.uk> Cc: "Antwi, Tiwaah P" <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll- bute.gov.uk> Peter, To enable us to provide a flood risk assessment and also provided resilient construction methods to minimise water ingress into the dwelling in the event of a flood overspill from the small burn to the east of the site, we need to establish if an amendment to elevate the building by approximately 1750 mm which will place the dwelling approx 450mm above the adjacent ground level at the existing roadway, as the attached sketches, would be acceptable in planning terms ? We would be grateful for your comments as soon as possible please. regards john bol b3a <image017.jpg> <image018.jpg> On 3 Feb 2023, at 16:45, Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@ argyll- Page 21
Page 22
argyll bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classifica(on: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Evening Jon, Please see alached a copy of the Clachan Flood Study Baseline Report that has been provided by the Council’s Roads & Infrastructure Services with the caveats below. I trust that this is of assistance and await your further instrucAon on whether the applicant wishes to review their intent to provide further informaAon pertaining to flood risk to address the concerns raised by both SEPA and the Council’s FRA. Best regards, <image016.pn g>Peter Bain Development Manager Page 22
Page 23
Manager Development & Economic Growth, Argyll and Bute Council. t: 01546 604204 e: peter.bain@ argyll- bute.gov.uk w: www.argyll- bute.gov.uk For details of any disrupAon to service delivery and amended ways of working Click Here <image017.pn g>follow us on Twiler hlps:// twiler.com/ab c_planning If you have any comments or wish to make a suggesAon, please fill in our online Custom er SaAsfacAon QuesAonnaire <image018.jpg > <image019.jpg > <image004.jpg > From: Flooding Enquiries fl di i Page 23
Page 24
<floodingenqui ries@argyll- bute.gov.uk> Sent: 01 February 2023 13:59 To: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@a rgyll- bute.gov.uk> Subject: RE: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP > Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [2018s0548] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Classifica(on: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Peter, Please find the Clachan Flood Study Baseline Report alached. This details the extents for various flood events in Clachan. The report is available for public viewing if requested h lth Page 24
Page 25
however altho ugh the Council has provided a copy of the report it cannot be responsible for any inaccuracies in it and that the informaAon within it is used at the applicants own risk. The comments made by SEPA and by JBA acAng on behalf of ABC should also be taken into account. Any further queries regarding this maler should be sent to floodingenq uiries@argyll- bute.gov.uk Regards Grant Grant Whyte Technical Officer Infrastructure Design Argyll and Bute Council Helensburgh & Lomond Civic Centre 38 East Clyde Street Helensburgh G84 7PG T 01436 Page 25
Page 26
T : 01436 658868 grant.whyte@ Argyll- Bute.gov.uk From: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@a rgyll- bute.gov.uk> Sent: 31 January 2023 13:21 To: Whyte, Grant <Grant.Whyte @argyll- bute.gov.uk> Subject: FW: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP > Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [2018s0548] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Classifica(on: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Afernoon Grant, I’m not sure if you’ll be able Page 26
Page 27
to assist with this one or not. In summary we have a planning applicaAon in Clachan that is subject to objecAon from SEPA and JBA in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment. One of the reasons that the Agent has refused to proceed with the FRA is that neither the Council or SEPA have provided detail of the 1:200 flood level – it is understood that this would in this instance be based on work undertaken by the Council as part of the Clachan Burn Survey. I’ve alached a locaAon plan of the development – are you in a posiAon to confirm the 1:200 flood level for this locality? <image002.pn g> <image006.pn Page 27
Page 28
g> <image010.pn g> <image015.pn g> Thanks, <image016.pn g>Peter Bain Development Manager Development & Economic Growth, Argyll and Bute Council. t: 01546 604204 e: peter.bain@ argyll- bute.gov.uk w: www.argyll- bute.gov.uk For details of any disrupAon to service delivery and amended ways of working Click Here <image017.pn g>follow us on Twiler hlps:// twiler.com/ab c_planning If you have any comments or wish to make a suggesAon, please fill in our online Custom er SaAsfacAon QuesAonnaire Page 28
Page 29
<image018.jpg > <image019.jpg > <image021.jpg > From: David Cameron Sent: 30 January 2023 13:49 To: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@a rgyll- bute.gov.uk> Cc: Whyte, Grant <Grant.Whyte @argyll- bute.gov.uk> Subject: RE: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP > Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] [2018s0548] Hi Peter, The Clachan Flood Study was Page 29
Page 30
was undertaken by others on behalf of Argyll and Bute Council. Grant Whyte (cc’ed) will be the best contact for that. Some general informaAon is here hlps://w ww.argyll- bute.gov.uk/flo od-studies Kind regards, Dave Dr David Cameron Technical Director | Team Leader From: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@a rgyll- bute.gov.uk> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2023 12:33 PM To: David Cameron Subject: FW: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP > Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Page 30
Page 31
Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Afternoon David, We're currently looking at this application as a refusal as the applicant has been unable to provide the further information requested. I note on review of the file that issue has been raised by the Agent in relation to a request from the Council to provide information from the 'Clachan Burn Survey' (see below). Is this information that you would have to hand that could be forwarded to the Agent? thanks, Peter Bain Development Manager Development Page 31
Page 32
Policy Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services Argyll and Bute Council T: 01546 604082 E: peter.bain @argyll- bute.gov.uk W: www.argy ll-bute.gov.uk Argyll and Bute - Realising our potential together ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----- From: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Ant wi@argyll- bute.gov.uk> To: dm.civica <dm.civica@ argyll- bute.gov.uk> Date: 03/10/2022 12:32:03 Subject: FW: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATIO N REF. <21/02691/PP Page 32
Page 33
Page 33
Page 34
Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] Further to our previous email regarding the proposed flood risk assessment, the applicant has recently receiving quotations and timescales from Engineering consultancies throughout Scotland to provide the flood risk assessment and associated modelling requested by Argyll and Bute Council and SEPA. The applicant has decided that he cannot justify this added expense, especially as there is no guarantee after paying out many thousands of pounds for this work that the application will be granted and in light of the fact that we Page 34
Page 35
cannot get a 1in 200 year flood level from the council’s own modelling and therefore this is seen as a risky venture for them. They are disappointed at this situation as this was going to be their family home and the construction of the building would bring much needed work into the area and benefit to the local economy, but they have tried to accommodate the requirements as much as possible by locating the house as far as possible away from any potential risks but to no avail. Therefor we will not be able to provide a flood risk assessment, as this is not Page 35
Page 36
feasible as stated previously as no information was forthcoming in relation to 1:200 year flood levels and subsequent flood modelling due to a non- verified photograph taken by an objector in 2018. Therefore can you please determine the application as you see fit and the applicant can decide on their next steps. Regards john bol b3a On 12 Aug 2022, at 07:27, Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Ant wi@argyll- bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classification: OFFICIAL Good Page 36
Page 37
Page 37
Page 38
Page 38
Page 39
D ar Mr Bol Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, the additional information supplied remains insufficient for us to withdraw our objection. Our reasoning is as follows: It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the site is not at risk and to provide the relevant supporting information. It is therefore for the applicant to contact Argyll and Bute Council (or JBA Consulting, who work with the council to provide flood risk support) in order to obtain the flood levels for the site from the Clachan Burn and to demonstrate with topographic information and an appropriate Page 39
Page 40
Page 40
Page 41
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: Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, Stirling FK9 4TZ. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the email system at SEPA may be subject to monitoring from time to time. Page 41
Page 42
Page 42
Page 43
know the content is safe. On 12 Jul 2022, at 10:56, Planning SW <planning.sw @sepa.org.uk > wrote: Peter, Many thanks for your reply in relation to this planning application and apologies for the late reply but I was waiting on a reply from JBA Consulting. In conversation with JBA Consulting it was agreed that the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling was above the 1in 200 year flood level ( although I am still unaware what this level is ?) confirmed by SEPA in their letter dated 14th October 2019 and within the planning refusal Page 43
Page 44
refusal documents within application18/ 02686/PP, and that the main concern was the flooding from the small watercourse, which was shown in a series of photographs within a previous application. After downloading these photographs, it does show the watercourse overflowing, but there is no evidence to indicate when this event occurred and is not backed up with an independent observation. Unfortunately this evidence is from an objector to the development and therefor has an interest in the application being refused. The objector does not stipulate when these photographs w r t k Page 44
Page 45
were taken only that they were taken from the neighbouring property and it should be noted that in one of the photographs the gate has been opened for some reason with what seems to be a timber runner to the bottom of the gate which could be diverting the water into the roadway ( comparison of the water flow with and without the gate being opened) and not to the South of the site as quoted within the objectors report ? There is also an unknown timber structure within our site which my client in unaware of. Therefor without any independent reporting and transparency these photographs do not id Page 45
Page 46
provide sufficient evidence as this incident was not even reported within the Clachan Flood Study in 2019 or in any newspaper articles. It should also be noted that this objector has not filed his objection to this planning application. As there is no documentary evidence for the overflowing, for instance our client has been informed this may have been due to a tree falling and blocking the watercourse and subsequently diverting the water flow ? We have also gone through the corresponden ce from previous applications and note that SEPA as recently as 14th October 2019 had no b i Page 46
Page 47
objection to flood risk on the site ,so it can only be the evidence of the photographs mentioned above which has forced a change of mind. We would be grateful if as you suggested Argyll & Bute Council can confirm the 1 in 200 flood level as a flood risk conclusion cannot be finalised without this information and that the photographic evidence is not sufficient to warrant further investigations. I am assuming that the two photographs are the only pieces of evidence as JBA Consulting could only provide a link to these photographs within the planning portal. I l i Page 47
Page 48
In conclusion can it be confirmed that the level of the development is above the 1 in 200 year level, and that the flooding to the small watercourse is inconclusive as it is not supported by independent evidence. We have enclose two photographs of the watercourse in normal flow and it would seem that in forming the access gate to Stratholm the banking to the watercourse has been removed to achieve this access which could result in overflowing in storm conditions, so my client has suggested we remove the gate and replace with a fence and reinstate the banking. Regards Page 48
Page 49
john bol b3a <image001.jp g> <image002.jp g> <image003.jp g> OFFICIAL Dear Mr Bol Thank you for your email. I have consulted my colleagues in SEPA’s Flood Risk Hydrology team, who have made some general points and answered your (in bold) questions as follows: SEPA’s flood risk advice considers the risk to the site as a whole, as defined by the red line boundary, and not just the area of the development shown in the site plan. When an application is for planning Page 49
Page 50
in principle, the site layout is often not fixed and in such cases, planning conditions can be applied to determine which parts of the site are, or are not, suitable for development. Such conditions would be informed by additional information such as a flood risk assessment. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registration of the planning application, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension to the neighbouring property which is on a similar level Page 50
Page 51
and distance from water courses. The SEPA Flood maps are indicative and designed to be used as a strategic tool to assess flood risk at the community level and to support planning policy and flood risk management in Scotland. In this area, there has been no site- specific data used within the assessment and a consistent, nationally- applied methodology using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river corridors and low-lying coastal land has been applied. Although the location proposed for the dwelling (based on the Site Layout) is outwith the flood extent of the SEPA Page 51
Page 52
Flood Map, the lower part of the site is within an area shown to be at risk of flooding from the Clachan Burn. It is therefore not clear if the proposed land raising would encroach on the functional flood plain. This would not be acceptable under the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy. The SEPA Flood Maps do not include small watercourses with catchments less than 3km2, such as the small watercourse to the east of the site. Therefore, flood extents will not appear on the map for these and in such situations, additional flood risk information is often required. Small watercourses Page 52
Page 53
are often poorly understood with respect to the severity of the flood hazard that can be generated on a catchment of this scale and they can still cause serious flooding You can view the SEPA Flood Maps and find out more about them at Flood Maps | SEPA - Flood Maps | SEPA. There is mention within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous application, this flood risk assessment does not relate to this application as the design is fundamentally different, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such photographs or hard evidence of Page 53
Page 54
what they are. The previous application and supporting documents, including the flood risk assessment, are publicly available on the Argyll and Bute planning portal and can be viewed at Simple Search (argyll- bute.gov.uk) by searching for reference 19/01738/PP. Although the site layout for the previous application may have been different, the site boundary is the same and the purpose of the flood risk assessment is to assess risk to the site, as defined by the red line boundary. The Contributor Response dated 07/10/2019 on the planning portal associated with the previous planning application includes Page 54
Page 55
photographs of high flows coming out of bank from the small watercourse along the east boundary of the site. The additional information in Section 8 of the document states the flood water has flowed across the application site on several occasions. This demonstrates that there is a risk of flooding from this source and as such, further information must be provided to show how this risk impacts the site and to inform any areas where development must be avoided. We have attached the FRA and Contributor Response for ease of reference but note that there are additional documents available online. Page 55
Page 56
The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed after construction of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed they will be a permanent feature ? SEPA has not assumed that the caravans are permanent, however has set out this position for clarity if the situation were to change in the future. It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished Page 56
Page 57
our fini h floor level. We understand that Argyll and Bute council have undertaken a flood study for the Clachan Burn. As such, they should be contacted to obtain the relevant 200- year flood level for the Clachan Burn at the site. This level can then be used to inform any planning conditions which may be required. For clarity, we would object to any land raising within the functional flood plain i.e. on existing ground levels below the 200-year flood level. With regards to the small watercourse, as a flood risk assessment is yet to be undertaken, we are not aware of the 200-year level, flood extent or flow Page 57
Page 58
extent or flow pathways for this source. As such, a detailed Flood Risk Assessment is required to be undertaken by a qualified professional. As noted in our previous response, the flood risk assessment (FRA) should assess the risk of flooding from this watercourse with consideration of any backwater effect from the confluence with the Clachan Burn as well as blockage to any existing structures, such as where the watercourse passes under the track at the north-east corner of the site. As the flood records indicate flooding may be instigated at the north- east corner of the site, any FRA would need to Page 58
Page 59
Page 59
Page 60
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: Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, Stirling FK9 4TZ. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the email system at SEPA may be subject to monitoring from time to Page 60
Page 61
Page 61
Page 62
the above application for a contact with in SEPA who is dealing with this project but unfortunately they have only supplied a general email address. In regard to your statement, the design and access statement issued with the application stated “ It has been assumed that a Flood Risk Assessment is not applicable for this application as the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is over 5m above the mean level of the watercourse and approximately 24m from the burn running North to South in close proximity to the Eastern boundary. If flooding is to occur to the dw lli th Page 62
Page 63
dwelling the water level would be above all the rooftops within the village, and common sense would dictate that this is not a feasibility. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registration of the planning application, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension to the neighbouring property which is on a similar level and distance from water courses.There is mention within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous application, thi fl d i k Page 63
Page 64
this flood risk assessment does not relate to this application as the design is fundamentally different, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such photographs or hard evidence of what they are. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed after construction of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed they will be a permanent feature ? It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood l l l h Page 64
Page 65
level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished floor level. If possible could we have a discussion to find a way forward with this application ? Regards john bol b3a 07511 691757 <Contributor Response 19_01738_PP. pdf><FRA 19_01738_PP. pdf> Argyll and Bute Council’s e- mail system (also used by LiveArgyll) classifies the sensitivity of emails according to the Government i Page 65
Page 66
kin ly no ify 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 communicatio ns 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. JBA Consulting, Unit 2.1, Quantum Court, Research Avenue South, Heriot Watt Page 66
Page 67
Heriot Watt Research Park, Riccarton, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH14 4AP. Telephone: +44131319 2940 Visit our new website at www.jba consulting.c om. This email is covered by the JBA Consulting email disclaimer JBA Consulting is a trading name of Jeremy Benn Associates Limited, registered in England, company number 03246693, 1 Broughton Park, Old Lane North, Broughton, Skipton, North Yorkshire, BD23 3FD. <image004.jp g> --- Argyll and Bute Council classify the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. The adopted classifications are: NOT PROTECTIVEL Y MARKED Non public sector business i.e. does not require protection. OFFICIAL Page 67
Page 68
From: b Subject: Re: Request for Review of Planning Application Reference: 21/02691/PP [OFFICIAL] Date: 10 January 2023 at 12:22 To: McCallum, Fiona Fiona.McCallum@argyll-bute.gov.uk Cc: DPEA Karen.Cowie@gov.scot Fiona, Further to my email on 23rd December, can you please confirm that this application will not be going to a local review board so I can commence with contacting the minister responsible for planning a Holyrood. regards john bol b3a On 23 Dec 2022, at 18:30, wrote: FionaFiona, Thank you for your email with attached letter. Firstly can I remind you that Argyll & Bute Council intervened and insisted with the DPEA appeal process to bring it back to the council to have a Local Review. Also, the reason we did not contact your department within the 3 months and this can be interpreted from the documents which were submitted to you was that the planning department did not respond within the 2 month period but responded in 10 weeks with a list of queries which leaves us in a catch 22 position, do we carry on with negotiations with the planning department or appeal, we chose to carry on with negotiations, but apparently this was the incorrect choice as they way you are conducting your options does beg the question what is your motive for such timings and maladministration of this application? We to this date still have not had a decision notice from the Council Therefor, if we have no alternative to appeal we shall re-approach the DPEA and if this is unsuccessful we will be contacting the Government minister responsible within the Scottish Government directly and also taking this to the press. regards john bol b3a On 23 Dec 2022, at 11:13, McCallum, Fiona <Fiona.McCallum@argyll-bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classifica(on: OFFICIAL Good morning Please find a0ached le0er regarding the above. Kind regards. Fiona McCallum Committee Services Officer Legal & Regulatory Support Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RT Please note, I am working from home and can be contacted via the telephone number and e-mail address o tlined below Thank o <image002.jpg> Page 68
Page 69
address outlined below. Thank you. Tel: 01546 604392 Email: fiona.mccallum@argyll- bute.gov.uk http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk <image001.png> 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. <20221223_Let to J Bol 2102691PP.pdf><LRB Guidance Note.doc> Page 69
Page 70
From: Bain, Peter (Planning) Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk Subject: RE: <21/02691/PP> - update [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Date: 1 February 2023 at 10:50 To: Cc: Whyte, Grant Grant.Whyte@argyll-bute.gov.uk Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Morning John, I’ve had ini1al feedback from David Cameron at JBA consul1ng (who act as the Council’s advisor in Flood Risk maCers) advising that they don’t hold the info requested. He did recommend however that I flagged this one up with Grant Whyte in the Council’s Roads & Infrastructure Services who may be able to assist. I forwarded this yesterday. Regards, Peter Bain Development Manager Development & Economic Growth, Argyll and Bute Council. t: 01546 604204 e: peter.bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk w: www.argyll-bute.gov.uk For details of any disrup1on to service delivery and amended ways of working Click Here follow us on TwiCer hCps://twiCer.com/abc_planning If you have any comments or wish to make a sugges1on, please fill in our online Customer Sa1sfac1on Ques1onnaire From: Sent: 01 February 2023 10:26 T P (Pl ) P ll Page 70
Page 71
To: Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: <21/02691/PP> - update [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Peter, Many thanks for getting back to me with your feedback. In regard to the 1:200 year flood level, do you have any indication when we would expect to receive this, so we can inform the releant engineers to provide a cost to prepare the FRA ? regards john bol b3a On 30 Jan 2023, at 12:41, Bain, Peter (Planning) <Peter.Bain@argyll- bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classifica8on: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Akernoon Jon, Apologies for the delay in gelng back to you. I can advise that I have now had the opportunity to review the file and drak report of handling on this item and cannot iden1fy any means of removing the SEPA/FRA holding objec1ons un1l such 1me as further informa1on on the minro watercourse has been submiCed as per the consulta1on input from SEPA/FRA. I have however noted that in part this issue has not been addressed as confirma1on was not provided by either SEPA or ABC on the 1:200 flood level. I note that SEPA have confirmed that this is a maCer for ABC and I have accordingly issued a request to our FRA to request that the relevant informa1on is provided to you. I’m currently awai1ng feedback on this issue and will update you on receipt of a response. In other respects I can also confirm that if a response that allows the applicant to reconsider their posi1on on provision of a Flood risk Assessment is not received then the applica1on is otherwise wriCen up and ready to be determined as a refusal. Regards, <image001.png>Peter Bain Development Manager Development & Economic Growth, Argyll and Bute Council. t: 01546 604204 e: peter.bain@argyll-bute.gov.uk w: www.argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 71
Page 72
Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) Telephone: 0131 244 6936 E-mail: Karen.Cowie@gov.scot Mr J Bol – sent by e-mail b3a The Whisky Bond 2 Dawson Road Glasgow G4 9SS Our ref: PPA-130-2085 Planning Authority ref:21/02691/PP 7 December 2022 Dear Mr Bol PLANNING PERMISSION APPEAL: LAND WEST OF STRATHHOLM CLACHAN TARBERT ARGYLL AND BUTE Thank you for your appeal that was received in this office on 4 December 2022. I am pleased to inform you that your appeal has been checked and is ready to move to the next stage of the appeal process. Next Steps Argyll and Bute Council, the planning authority that dealt with your original application has 21 days from when they received your appeal to provide a response, along with any relevant documents or information. You will receive a copy of this and then have 14 days to comment. Please note, if you wish to respond, your comments should be limited to any new matters the planning authority raise and which were not included in its processing of your application. On completion of this process, a reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers will consider your case and move towards reaching a decision. The reporter might have enough information to make a decision and in this instance you will be informed that no further procedures are necessary, prior to the decision being issued. Alternatively the reporter might decide to carry-out a site visit before making a decision and/or decide that additional information is required. In either of these instances I will write and keep you informed. DPEA, Ground Floor, Hadrian House, Callendar Business Park, Falkirk, FK1 1XR www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk www.gov.scot/policies/planning-environmental-appeals Page 72
Page 73
Appeal is I Further Information Further information can be found on the appeal process, which includes using the appeal website (Appeal Website), the DPEA complaints procedure and guidance on claims for an award of expenses - Taking Part in Planning Appeals and Other Cases. I trust this explains the position. Yours sincerely Karen Cowie KAREN COWIE Case Officer Planning And Environmental Appeals Division Page 73
Page 74
b3a The Whisky Bond 2 Dawson Road Glasgow G4 9SS T 4 May 2022 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure Services 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead Argyll and Bute PA31 8RD For the attention of Peter Bain PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Dear Sir/Madam In reply to your letter dated 28th April 2022: Firstly this application was due for a decision on 9th April 2022, we did not receive a letter requesting an extension to the timescale and only received this letter after many attempts to receive any kind of communication from your department. In regard to the comments from SEPA, the design and access statement issued with the application stated “ It has been assumed that a Flood Risk Assessment is not applicable for this application as the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is over 5m above the mean level of the watercourse and approximately 24m from the burn running North to South in close proximity to the Eastern boundary. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on their floodzone maps. “ this was accepted at registration so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension to the neighbouring property which is on a similar level and distance from water courses. Within the comments from SEPA and JBA Consulting there is mention of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous application, this flood risk assessment does not relate to this application as the design is fundamentally different, can I ask why they are using this, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such photographs or hard evidence of what they are. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed after construction of the dwelling, please explain why you and SEPA have presumed they will be a permanent feature ? In regard to the site specific FRA, we will writing to SEPA and JBA Consulting separately in regard to this. 1 Page 74
Page 75
Page 75
Page 76
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Gháidheal agus Bhóid Development And Infrastructure Services Executive Director: Kirsty Flanagan 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Our Ref. : 21/02691/PP Your Ref. : Contact : planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk Mr Lee Wheeler B3a The Whisky Bond 2 Dawson Road Glasgow G4 9SS 28 April 2022 Dear Sir/ Madam, town and country planning (scotland) act 1997 town and country planning (Development management procedure) (scotland) regulations 2013 – regulation 24 SITE ADDRESS: Land West Of Strathholm Clachan Tarbert Argyll and Bute PROPOSAL: Erection of dwellinghouse and siting of 2 temporary caravans (retrospective), erection of timber storage shed (retrospective) installation of sewage treatment plant, formation of car parking area and associated works I refer to your application in respect of the above and must advise that the details submitted are insufficient to allow the Planning Authority to determine the application. As such, I am formally notifying you in accordance with Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 that the Council will not determine your application in the absence of the details listed below. • Additional information is required to address SEPA’s concerns raised in relation to the application. The site is close to a small watercourse. Comments and photographs submitted with an earlier application at this development site (planning reference 19/01738/PP) demonstrated that the site has experienced flooding from this small watercourse in 2012 and 2015. The flood risk assessment (FRA) should assess the risk of flooding from this watercourse, including consideration of any backwater effect from the confluence with the Clachan Burn and blockage of existing structures. • Secondly, the two temporary caravans proposed as part of the development solely for the construction phase as shown on block plan with drawing no. 1067.05 would be objected to in the event that these are to be retained permanently on site. This is because caravans are classified by SEPA as a ‘most vulnerable’ use, however, relocating them beyond the 1 in 1000-year flood extent would likely be deemed acceptable. • Furthermore, a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) that quantifies the 1:200 year plus climate change fluvial and surface water flood events per 1b-d above would be required. This should be accompanied by a site section plan illustrating the site’s historic flooding levels. Page 76
Page 77
• You are advised to discuss the scope of the Flood Risk Assessment with SEPA and refer to Scottish Planning Policy (SPP)7: PLANNING AND FLOODING which can be viewed on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications. SEPA can be contacted at Graesser House, Fodderty Way, Dingwall IV15 9XB - Tel: 01349 862021 It should be noted that in the case of a material amendment to your current planning application, this would require a new planning application submission and a further planning application and/or advert fee. The additional information requested above should be submitted within 3 weeks from the date of this letter unless an alternative, extended timescale for submission is agreed in writing with the case officer. The information should be submitted to planning.maki@argyll- bute.gov.uk or to Argyll and Bute Council, Development Management, Kilmory Castle, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT. In the event that it is not possible to submit the requested information within an agreed time period it would be more appropriate to withdraw the current application and resubmit when the additional information requested is available. In the event that the requested information is not submitted within the agreed time period, I must advise that it would be my intention to refuse the application on the basis of lack of information. I trust that the above is self-explanatory; however, should you wish to discuss this matter further then please do not hesitate to contact the office on 01546 605518. Yours faithfully Peter Bain Development Manager, 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Page 77
Page 78
From: john bol Subject: Re: 5707 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Date: 28 July 2022 at 09:04 To: Planning SW k Cc: Rozy Shepherd Antwi, Tiwaah P TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk On 12 Ju 2022, at 10:56, P ann ng SW < > wrote: Peter, Many thanks for your rep y n re at on to th s p ann ng app cat on and apo og es for the ate rep y but I was wa t ng on a rep y from JBA Consu t ng. In conversat on w th JBA Consu t ng t was agreed that the fin shed floor eve of the proposed dwe ng was above the 1 n 200 year flood eve ( a though I am st unaware what th s eve s ?) confirmed by SEPA n the r etter dated 14th October 2019 and w th n the p ann ng refusa documents w th n app cat on18/02686/PP, and that the ma n concern was the flood ng from the sma watercourse, wh ch was of photographs w th n a prev ous app cat on. After down oad ng these photographs, t does show the watercourse overflow ng, but there s no ev dence to nd cate when th s event occurred and s not backed up w th an ndependent observat on. Unfortunate y th s ev dence s from an objector to the deve opment and therefor has an nterest n the app cat on be ng refused. The objector does not st pu ate when these photographs were taken on y that the the ne ghbour ng property and t shou d be noted that n one of the photographs the gate has been opened for some reason w th what seems to be a t mber runner to the bottom of the gate wh ch cou d be d vert ng the water nto the roadway ( compar son of the water flow w th and w thout the gate be ng opened) and not to the South of the s te as quoted w th n the objectors report ? There s a so an unknow w th n our s te wh ch my c ent n unaware of. Therefor w thout any ndependent report ng and transparency these photographs do not prov de suffic ent ev dence as th s nc dent was not even reported w th n the C achan F ood Study n 2019 or n any newspaper art c es. It shou d a so be noted that th s objector has not fi ed h s object on to th s p ann ng app cat on. As there s no documentary ev dence for the overflow ng, for nstance our c ent has been nformed th s may have been due to a tree fa ng and b ock ng the watercourse and subsequent y d vert ng the water flow ? We have a so gone through the correspondence from prev ous app cat ons and note that SEPA as recent y as 14th October 2019 had no object on to flood r sk on the s te ,so t can on y be the ev dence of the photographs ment oned above wh ch has forced a change of m nd. We wou d be gratefu f as you suggested Argy & Bute Counc can confirm the 1 n 200 flood eve as a flood r sk conc us on cannot be fina sed w thout th s nformat on and that the photograph c ev dence s not suffic ent to warrant further nvest gat ons. I am assum ng that the two photographs are the on y p eces of ev dence as JBA Consu t ng cou d on y prov de a nk to these photographs w th n the p ann In conc us on can t be confirmed that the eve of the deve opment s above the 1 n 200 year eve , and that the flood ng to the sma watercourse s nconc us ve as t s not supported by ndependent ev dence. We have enc ose two photographs of the watercourse n norma flow and t wou d seem that n form ng the access gate to Stratho m the bank ng to the watercourse has been removed to ach eve th s access wh ch cou d resu t n overflow ng n storm cond t ons, so my c ent has suggested we remove the gate and rep ace w th a fence and re nstate the bank ng. Regards john bo b3a Page 78
Page 79
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. OFFICIAL Dear Mr Bol Thank you for your email. I have consulted my colleagues in SEPA’s Flood Risk Hydrology team, who have made some general points and answered your (in bold) quesMons as follows: SEPA’s flood risk advice considers the risk to the site as a whole, as defined by the red line boundary, and not just the area of the development shown in the site plan. When an applicaMon is for planning in principle, the site layout is oSen not fixed and in such cases, planning condiMons can be ap determine which parts of the site are, or are not, suitable for development. Such condiMons would be informed by addiMonal informaMon such as a flood risk assessment. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registra=on of the planning applica=on, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension to the neighbouring pro is on a similar level and distance from water courses. The SEPA Flood maps are indicaMve and designed to be used as a strategic tool to assess flood risk at the community level and to support planning policy and flood risk management in Scotland. In this area, there has been no site-specific data used within the assessment and a consistent, naMon methodology using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river corridors and low-lying coastal land has been applied. Although the locaMon proposed for the dwelling (based on the Site Layout) is outwith the flood extent of the SEPA Flood Map, the lower part of the site is within an area shown to be at risk of flooding from the Clachan Burn. It is therefore not clear if the proposed land raising would encroach on funcMonal flood plain. This would not be acceptable under the requirements of ScoVsh Planning Policy. The SEPA Flood Maps do not include small watercourses with catchments less than 3km2, such as the small watercourse to the east of the site. Therefore, flood extents will not appear on the map for these and in such situaMons, addiMonal flood risk informaMon is oSen required. Small watercourses are oSen poorly understood with respect to the severity of the flood hazard that can be generated on a catchment of this scale and they can sMll cause serious flooding You can view the SEPA Flood Maps and find out more about them at Flood Maps | SEPA - Flood Maps | SEPA. There is men=on within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous applica=on, this flood risk assessment does not relate to this applica=on as the design is fundamentally different, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such phot hard evidence of what they are. The previous applicaMon and supporMng documents, including the flood risk assessment, are publicly available on the Argyll and Bute planning portal and can be viewed at Simple Search (argyll-bute.gov.uk) by searching for reference 19/01738/PP. Although the site layout for the previous applicaMon may have been different, the site boundary is the same and the purpose of the flood risk assessment is to assess risk to the site, as defined by the red line boundary. The Contributor Response dated 07/10/2019 on the planning portal associated with the previous planning applicaMon includes photographs of high flows coming out of bank from the small watercourse along the east boundary of the site. The addiMonal informaMon in SecMon 8 of the document flood water has flowed across the applicaMon site on several occasions. This demonstrates that there is a risk of flooding from this source and as such, further informaMon must be provided to show how this risk impacts the site and to inform any areas where development must be avoided. We have acached the FRA and Contributor Response for ease of reference but note that there are addiMonal documents available online. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed aHer construc=on of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed they will be a permanent f SEPA has not assumed that the caravans are permanent, however has set out this posiMon for clarity if the situaMon were to change in the future. It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished floor level. We understand that Argyll and Bute council have undertaken a flood study for the Clachan Burn. As such, they should be contacted to obtain the relevant 200-year flood level for the Clachan Burn at the site. This level can then be used to inform any planning condiMons which may be required. Fo would object to any land raising within the funcMonal flood plain i.e. on exisMng ground levels below the 200-year flood level. With regards to the small watercourse, as a flood risk assessment is yet to be undertaken, we are not aware of the 200-year level, flood extent or flow pathways for this source. As such, a detailed Flood Risk Assessment is required to be undertaken by a qualified professional. As noted in our prev response, the flood risk assessment (FRA) should assess the risk of flooding from this watercourse with consideraMon of any backwater effect from the confluence with the Clachan Burn as well as blockage to any exisMng structures, such as where the watercourse passes under the track at the no corner of the site. As the flood records indicate flooding may be insMgated at the north-east corner of the site, any FRA would need to extend far enough upstream to ensure the best representaMon of the flood risk at the site and should also consider the influence of the track with regards to flow pathways and wh waters may enter into the site if diverted along the track along the north of the site. I hope this informaMon is useful. If you have any further queries, please contact me by email via planning.sw@sepa.org.uk (The use of a general email address allows us to manage work when staff are on leave, as I was last week). Kind regards Peter Minting SEPA Planning Officer Disclaimer The informaMon contained in this email and any acachments may be confidenMal and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipients. Access, copying or re-use of the informaMon in it by any other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please noMfy us immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Registered office: Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, SMrling FK9 4TZ. Under the RegulaMon of InvesMgatory Powers Act 2000, the email system at SEPA may be subject to monitoring from Mme to Mme. OFFICIAL From: john bol < Sent: 26 June 2022 17:30 To: Planning SW Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Dear Sir/Madam, I asked the planning officer dealing with the above applicaMon for a contact with in SEPA who is dealing with this project but unfortunately they have only supplied a general email address. In regard to your statement, the design and access statement issued with the application stated “ It has been assumed that a Flood Risk Assessment is not applicable for this application as the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is over 5m above the mean lev watercourse and approximately 24m from the burn running North to South in close proximity to the Eastern boundary. If flooding is to occur to the dwelling the water level would be above all the rooftops within the village, and common sense would dictate that this is n feasibility. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registration of the planning application, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension t neighbouring property which is on a similar level and distance from water courses.There is mention within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous application, this flood risk assessment does not relate to this application as the design is fundamenta the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such photographs or hard evidence of what they are. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed after construction of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed they w permanent feature ? It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished floor level. If possible could we have a discussion to find a way forward with this applicaMon ? Regards john bol b3a <Contr butor Response 19 01738 PP.pdf><FRA 19 01738 PP.pdf> Page 79
Page 80
From: Antwi, Tiwaah P TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk Subject: RE: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] Date: 6 October 2022 at 15:59 To: john bol j Classification: OFFICIAL Hi John, I can confirm receipt of your last email and will be assessing the applica;on for determina;on in due course. We are s;ll experiencing delays due to backlog and staff shortage. I shall look into this at the earliest and revert. Kind regards, Tiwaah Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council 01546604035 ;waahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk From: john bol Sent: 04 October 2022 09:16 To: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Fwd: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] Begin forwarded message: It has been 4 weeks since sending this email without a reply, looking at the webpage nothing has been added to since 28th April this year, if you do reply within the next 7 days we will have no alternative but to submit an appeal under non determination. Regards john bol b3a From: john bol < Subject: Re: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. <21/02691/PP> Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute [OFFICIAL] Date: 8 September 2022 at 08:24:17 BST To: "Antwi, Tiwaah P" <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Cc: Planning SW < , "Rozy.Shepherd" < > Further to our previous email regarding the proposed flood risk assessment, the applicant has recently receiving quotations and timescales from Engineering consultancies throughout Scotland to provide the flood risk assessment and associated modelling requested by Argyll and Bute Council and SEPA. The applicant has decided that he cannot justify this added expense, especially as there is no guarantee after paying out many thousands of pounds for this work that the application will be granted and in light of the fact that we cannot get a 1in 200 year flood level from the council’s own modelling and therefore this is seen as a risky venture for them. They are disappointed at this situation as this was going to be their family home and the construction of the building would bring much needed work into the area and benefit to the local economy, but they have tried to accommodate the requirements as much as possible by locating the house as far as possible away from any potential risks but to no avail. Therefor we will not be able to provide a flood risk assessment, as this is not feasible as stated previously as no information was forthcoming in relation to 1:200 year flood levels and subsequent flood modelling due to a non- ifi j i 2018 Page 80
Page 81
verified photograph taken by an objector in 2018. Therefore can you please determine the application as you see fit and the applicant can decide on their next steps. Regards john bol b3a On 12 Aug 2022, at 07:27, Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classification: OFFICIAL Good morning John, Thanks for the update. I shall update the file and await submission of the FRA. Kind regards, Tiwaah Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council. 01546604035 ;waahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk <image001.png> From: john bol < Sent: 11 August 2022 15:54 To: Planning SW < > Cc: Rozy.Shepherd < >; Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute We are in the process of organising an FRA, we will let you know the dates when we have them. Regards john bol b3a On 11 Aug 2022, at 10:51, Planning SW < > wrote: OFFICIAL Dear Mr Bol Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, the addi;onal informa;on supplied remains insufficient for us to withdraw our objec;on. Our reasoning is as follows: It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the site is not at risk and to provide the relevant suppor;ng informa;on. It is therefore for the applicant to contact Argyll and Bute Council (or JBA Consul;ng, who work with the council to provide flood risk support) in order to obtain the flood levels for the site from the Clachan Burn and to demonstrate with topographic informa;on and an appropriate site layout that no development will take place below this level. SEPA do not hold a copy of the Clachan Burn study, so are unable to provide this informa;on. With regards to the small watercourse, we remain of the opinion that this source could present a risk of flooding to the site and we require a flood risk assessment to be undertaken as detailed in our previous responses. If you have any further queries, please contact me by email via Kind regards Peter Minting SEPA Planning Officer Disclaimer Th i f ; i d i hi il d h b fid ; l d i i d d l l Page 81
Page 82
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. The informa;on contained in this email and any akachments may be confiden;al and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipients. Access, copying or re-use of the informa;on in it by any other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please no;fy us immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Registered office: Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, S;rling FK9 4TZ. Under the Regula;on of Inves;gatory Powers Act 2000, the email system at SEPA may be subject to monitoring from ;me to ;me. OFFICIAL From: john bol < Sent: 28 July 2022 09:04 To: Planning SW < > Cc: Rozy.Shepherd >; Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll- bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: 5707 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute On 12 Jul 2022, at 10:56, Planning SW < > wrote: Peter, Many thanks for your reply in rela;on to this planning applica;on and apologies for the late reply but I was wai;ng on a reply from JBA Consul;ng. In conversa;on with JBA Consul;ng it was agreed that the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling was above the 1in 200 year flood level ( although I am s;ll unaware what this level is ?) confirmed by SEPA in their leker dated 14th October 2019 and within the planning refusal documents within applica;on18/02686/PP, and that the main concern was the flooding from the small watercourse, which was shown in a series of photographs within a previous applica;on. Aper downloading these photographs, it does show the watercourse overflowing, but there is no evidence to indicate when this event occurred and is not backed up with an independent observa;on. Unfortunately this evidence is from an objector to the development and therefor has an interest in the applica;on being refused. The objector does not s;pulate when these photographs were taken only that they were taken from the neighbouring property and it should be noted that in one of the photographs the gate has been opened for some reason with what seems to be a ;mber runner to the bokom of the gate which could be diver;ng the water into the roadway ( comparison of the water flow with and without the gate being opened) and not to the South of the site as quoted within the objectors report ? There is also an unknown ;mber structure within our site which my client in unaware of. Therefor without any independent repor;ng and transparency these photographs do not provide sufficient evidence as this incident was not even reported within the Clachan Flood Study in 2019 or in any newspaper ar;cles. It should also be noted that this objector has not filed his objec;on to this planning applica;on. As there is no documentary evidence for the overflowing, for instance our client has been informed this may have been due to a tree falling and blocking the watercourse and subsequently diver;ng the water flow ? We have also gone through the correspondence from previous applica;ons and note that SEPA as recently as 14th October 2019 had no objec;on to flood risk on the site ,so it can only be the evidence of the photographs men;oned above which has forced a change of mind. We would be grateful if as you suggested Argyll & Bute Council can confirm the 1 in 200 flood level as a flood risk conclusion cannot be finalised without this informa;on and that the photographic evidence is not sufficient to warrant further inves;ga;ons. I am assuming that the two photographs are the only pieces of evidence as JBA Consul;ng could only provide a link to these photographs within the planning portal. In conclusion can it be confirmed that the level of the development is above the 1 in 200 year level, and that the flooding to the small watercourse is inconclusive as it is not supported by independent evidence. We have enclose two photographs of the watercourse in normal flow and it would seem that in forming the access gate to Stratholm the banking to the watercourse has been removed to achieve this access which could result in overflowing in storm condi;ons, so my client has suggested we remove the gate and replace with a fence and reinstate the banking. Regards john bol Page 82
Page 83
john bol b3a <image001.jpg><image002.jpg><image003.jpg> OFFICIAL Dear Mr Bol Thank you for your email. I have consulted my colleagues in SEPA’s Flood Risk Hydrology team, who have made some general points and answered your (in bold) ques;ons as follows: SEPA’s flood risk advice considers the risk to the site as a whole, as defined by the red line boundary, and not just the area of the development shown in the site plan. When an applica;on is for planning in principle, the site layout is open not fixed and in such cases, planning condi;ons can be applied to determine which parts of the site are, or are not, suitable for development. Such condi;ons would be informed by addi;onal informa;on such as a flood risk assessment. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registraBon of the planning applicaBon, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension to the neighbouring property which is on a similar level and distance from water courses. The SEPA Flood maps are indica;ve and designed to be used as a strategic tool to assess flood risk at the community level and to support planning policy and flood risk management in Scotland. In this area, there has been no site-specific data used within the assessment and a consistent, na;onally-applied methodology using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river corridors and low-lying coastal land has been applied. Although the loca;on proposed for the dwelling (based on the Site Layout) is outwith the flood extent of the SEPA Flood Map, the lower part of the site is within an area shown to be at risk of flooding from the Clachan Burn. It is therefore not clear if the proposed land raising would encroach on the func;onal flood plain. This would not be acceptable under the requirements of Scossh Planning Policy. The SEPA Flood Maps do not include small watercourses with catchments less than 3km2, such as the small watercourse to the east of the site. Therefore, flood extents will not appear on the map for these and in such situa;ons, addi;onal flood risk informa;on is open required. Small watercourses are open poorly understood with respect to the severity of the flood hazard that can be generated on a catchment of this scale and they can s;ll cause serious flooding You can view the SEPA Flood Maps and find out more about them at Flood Maps | SEPA - Flood Maps | SEPA. There is menBon within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous applicaBon, this flood risk assessment does not relate to this applicaBon as the design is fundamentally different, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such photographs or hard evidence of what they are. The previous applica;on and suppor;ng documents, including the flood risk assessment, are publicly available on the Argyll and Bute planning portal and can be viewed at Simple Search (argyll-bute.gov.uk) by searching for reference 19/01738/PP. Although the site layout for the previous applica;on may have been different, the site boundary is the same and the purpose of the flood risk assessment is to assess risk to the site, as defined by the red line boundary. The Contributor Response dated 07/10/2019 on the planning portal associated with the previous planning applica;on includes photographs of high flows coming out of bank from the small watercourse along the east boundary of the site. The addi;onal informa;on in Sec;on 8 of the document states the flood water has flowed across the applica;on site on several occasions. This demonstrates that there is a risk of flooding from this source and as such, further informa;on must be provided to show how this risk impacts the site and to inform any areas where development must be avoided. We have akached the FRA and Contributor Response for ease of reference but note that there are addi;onal documents available online. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed aKer construcBon of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed they will be a permanent feature ? Page 83
Page 84
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. SEPA has not assumed that the caravans are permanent, however has set out this posi;on for clarity if the situa;on were to change in the future. It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished floor level. We understand that Argyll and Bute council have undertaken a flood study for the Clachan Burn. As such, they should be contacted to obtain the relevant 200-year flood level for the Clachan Burn at the site. This level can then be used to inform any planning condi;ons which may be required. For clarity, we would object to any land raising within the func;onal flood plain i.e. on exis;ng ground levels below the 200-year flood level. With regards to the small watercourse, as a flood risk assessment is yet to be undertaken, we are not aware of the 200-year level, flood extent or flow pathways for this source. As such, a detailed Flood Risk Assessment is required to be undertaken by a qualified professional. As noted in our previous response, the flood risk assessment (FRA) should assess the risk of flooding from this watercourse with considera;on of any backwater effect from the confluence with the Clachan Burn as well as blockage to any exis;ng structures, such as where the watercourse passes under the track at the north-east corner of the site. As the flood records indicate flooding may be ins;gated at the north-east corner of the site, any FRA would need to extend far enough upstream to ensure the best representa;on of the flood risk at the site and should also consider the influence of the track with regards to flow pathways and where flood waters may enter into the site if diverted along the track along the north of the site. I hope this informa;on is useful. If you have any further queries, please contact me by email via (The use of a general email address allows us to manage work when staff are on leave, as I was last week). Kind regards Peter Minting SEPA Planning Officer Disclaimer The informa;on contained in this email and any akachments may be confiden;al and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipients. Access, copying or re-use of the informa;on in it by any other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please no;fy us immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Registered office: Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, S;rling FK9 4TZ. Under the Regula;on of Inves;gatory Powers Act 2000, the email system at SEPA may be subject to monitoring from ;me to ;me. OFFICIAL From: john bol <j Sent: 26 June 2022 17:30 To: Planning SW < > Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Dear Sir/Madam, I asked the planning officer dealing with the above applica;on for a contact with in SEPA who is dealing with this project but unfortunately they have only supplied a general email address. In regard to your statement, the design and access statement issued with the application stated “ It has been assumed that a Flood Risk Assessment is not applicable for this application as the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is over 5m above the mean level of the watercourse and approximately 24m from the burn running North to South in close proximity to the Eastern boundary. If flooding is to occur to the dwelling the water level would be above all the rooftops within the village, and common sense would dictate that this is not a feasibility. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registration of the planning application, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension to the neighbouring property which is on a similar level and distance from water courses.There is mention within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous application, this flood risk assessment does not relate Page 84
Page 85
to this application as the design is fundamentally different, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such photographs or hard evidence of what they are. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed after construction of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed they will be a permanent feature ? It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished floor level. If possible could we have a discussion to find a way forward with this applica;on ? Regards john bol b3a <Contributor Response 19_01738_PP.pdf><FRA 19_01738_PP.pdf> 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 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 prohibited and may be unlawful Page 85
Page 86
From: john bol Subject: Re: 6033 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Date: 11 August 2022 at 15:53 To: Planning SW Cc: Rozy.Shepherd , Antwi, Tiwaah P TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. We are n the process of organ s ng an FRA, we w et you know the dates when we have them. Regards john bo b3a On 11 Aug 2022, at 10:51, P ann ng SW > wrote: OFFICIAL Dear Mr Bol Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, the addi>onal informa>on supplied remains insufficient for us to withdraw our objec>on. Our reasoning is as follows: It is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the site is not at risk and to provide the relevant suppor>ng informa>on. It is therefore for the applicant to contact Argyll and Bute Council (or JBA Consul>ng, who work with the council to provide flood risk support) in order to obtain th levels for the site from the Clachan Burn and to demonstrate with topographic informa>on and an appropriate site layout that no development will take place below this level. SEPA do not hold a copy of the Clachan Burn study, so are unable to provide this informa>on. With regards to the small watercourse, we remain of the opinion that this source could present a risk of flooding to the site and we require a flood risk assessment to be undertaken as detailed in our previous responses. If you have any further queries, please contact me by email via Kind regards Peter Minting SEPA Planning Officer Disclaimer The informa>on contained in this email and any aTachments may be confiden>al and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipients. Access, copying or re-use of the informa>on in it by any other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please no>fy us immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Registered office: Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, S>rling FK9 4TZ. Under the Regula>on of Inves>gatory Powers Act 2000, the email system at SEPA may be subject to monitoring from >me to >me. OFFICIAL From: john bol < Sent: 28 July 2022 09:04 To: Planning SW <p k> Cc: Rozy.Shepherd < ; Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: 5707 SEPA response to query PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute On 12 Jul 2022, at 10:56, Planning SW < k> wrote: Peter, Many thanks for your reply in rela>on to this planning applica>on and apologies for the late reply but I was wai>ng on a reply from JBA Consul>ng. In conversa>on with JBA Consul>ng it was agreed that the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling was above the 1in 200 year flood level ( although I am s>ll unaware what this level is ?) confirmed by SEPA in their leTer dated 14th October 2019 and within the planning refusal documents w applica>on18/02686/PP, and that the main concern was the flooding from the small watercourse, which was shown in a series of photographs within a previous applica>on. Aler downloading these photographs, it does show the watercourse overflowing, but there is no evidence to indicate when this event occurred and is not backed up with an independent observa>on. Unfortunately this evidence is from an objector to the development and therefor has an intere applica>on being refused. The objector does not s>pulate when these photographs were taken only that they were taken from the neighbouring property and it should be noted that in one of the photographs the gate has been opened for some reason with what seems to be a >mber runner to of the gate which could be diver>ng the water into the roadway ( comparison of the water flow with and without the gate being opened) and not to the South of the site as quoted within the objectors report ? There is also an unknown >mber structure within our site which my client in unaware Therefor without any independent repor>ng and transparency these photographs do not provide sufficient evidence as this incident was not even reported within the Clachan Flood Study in 2019 or in any newspaper ar>cles. It should also be noted that this objector has not filed his objec>on to planning applica>on. As there is no documentary evidence for the overflowing, for instance our client has been informed this may have been due to a tree falling and blocking the watercourse and subsequently diver>ng the water flow ? We have also gone through the correspondence from previous applica>ons and note that SEPA as recently as 14th October 2019 had no objec>on to flood risk on the site ,so it can only be the evidence of the photographs men>oned above which has forced a change of mind. We would be grateful if as you suggested Argyll & Bute Council can confirm the 1 in 200 flood level as a flood risk conclusion cannot be finalised without this informa>on and that the photographic evidence is not sufficient to warrant further inves>ga>ons. I am assuming that the two photograph only pieces of evidence as JBA Consul>ng could only provide a link to these photographs within the planning portal. In conclusion can it be confirmed that the level of the development is above the 1 in 200 year level, and that the flooding to the small watercourse is inconclusive as it is not supported by independent evidence. We have enclose two photographs of the watercourse in normal flow and it would seem that in forming the access gate to Stratholm the banking to the watercourse has been removed to achieve this access which could result in overflowing in storm condi>ons, so my client has suggested we rem gate and replace with a fence and reinstate the banking. Regards john bol b3a <image001.jpg><image002.jpg><image003.jpg> OFFICIAL Dear Mr Bol Thank you for your email. I have consulted my colleagues in SEPA’s Flood Risk Hydrology team, who have made some general points and answered your (in bold) ques>ons as follows: SEPA’s flood risk advice considers the risk to the site as a whole, as defined by the red line boundary, and not just the area of the development shown in the site plan. When an applica>on is for planning in principle, the site layout is olen not fixed and in such cases, planning condi>ons can applied to determine which parts of the site are, or are not, suitable for development. Such condi>ons would be informed by addi>onal informa>on such as a flood risk assessment. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registraBon of the planning applicaBon, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent extension to the neighbour property which is on a similar level and distance from water courses. The SEPA Flood maps are indica>ve and designed to be used as a strategic tool to assess flood risk at the community level and to support planning policy and flood risk management in Scotland. In this area, there has been no site-specific data used within the assessment and a consistent, na>onally-applied methodology using a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) to define river corridors and low-lying coastal land has been applied. Although the loca>on proposed for the dwelling (based on the Site Layout) is outwith the flood extent of the SEPA Flood Map, the lower part of the site is within an area shown to be at risk of flooding from the Clachan Burn. It is therefore not clear if the proposed land raising would encro on the func>onal flood plain. This would not be acceptable under the requirements of Scopsh Planning Policy. The SEPA Flood Maps do not include small watercourses with catchments less than 3km2, such as the small watercourse to the east of the site. Therefore, flood extents will not appear on the map for these and in such situa>ons, addi>onal flood risk informa>on is olen required. Small watercourses are olen poorly understood with respect to the severity of the flood hazard that can be generated on a catchment of this scale and they can s>ll cause serious flooding You can view the SEPA Flood Maps and find out more about them at Flood Maps | SEPA - Flood Maps | SEPA. There is menBon within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous applicaBon, this flood risk assessment does not relate to this applicaBon as the design is fundamentally different, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to suc photographs or hard evidence of what they are. The previous applica>on and suppor>ng documents, including the flood risk assessment, are publicly available on the Argyll and Bute planning portal and can be viewed at Simple Search (argyll-bute.gov.uk) by searching for reference 19/01738/PP. Although the site layout for the previous applica>on may have been different, the site boundary is the same and the purpose of the flood risk assessment is to assess risk to the site, as defined by the red line boundary. The Contributor Response dated 07/10/2019 on the planning portal associated with the previous planning applica>on includes photographs of high flows coming out of bank from the small watercourse along the east boundary of the site. The addi>onal informa>on in Sec>on 8 of the document states the flood water has flowed across the applica>on site on several occasions. This demonstrates that there is a risk of flooding from this source and as such, further informa>on must be provided to show how this risk impacts the site and to inform any areas where developm must be avoided. We have aTached the FRA and Contributor Response for ease of reference but note that there are addi>onal documents available online. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed aKer construcBon of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed they will be a perma feature ? SEPA has not assumed that the caravans are permanent, however has set out this posi>on for clarity if the situa>on were to change in the future. It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished floor level. We understand that Argyll and Bute council have undertaken a flood study for the Clachan Burn. As such, they should be contacted to obtain the relevant 200-year flood level for the Clachan Burn at the site. This level can then be used to inform any planning condi>ons which may be requ For clarity, we would object to any land raising within the func>onal flood plain i.e. on exis>ng ground levels below the 200-year flood level. With regards to the small watercourse, as a flood risk assessment is yet to be undertaken, we are not aware of the 200-year level, flood extent or flow pathways for this source. As such, a detailed Flood Risk Assessment is required to be undertaken by a qualified professional. As noted in o previous response, the flood risk assessment (FRA) should assess the risk of flooding from this watercourse with considera>on of any backwater effect from the confluence with the Clachan Burn as well as blockage to any exis>ng structures, such as where the watercourse passes under th track at the north-east corner of the site. As the flood records indicate flooding may be ins>gated at the north-east corner of the site, any FRA would need to extend far enough upstream to ensure the best representa>on of the flood risk at the site and should also consider the influence of the track with regards to flow pathways where flood waters may enter into the site if diverted along the track along the north of the site. I hope this informa>on is useful. If you have any further queries, please contact me by email via (The use of a general email address allows us to manage work when staff are on leave, as I was last week). Kind regards Peter Minting SEPA Planning Officer Disclaimer The informa>on contained in this email and any aTachments may be confiden>al and is intended solely for the use of the intended recipients. Access, copying or re-use of the informa>on in it by any other is not authorised. If you are not the intended recipient please no>fy us immediately by return email to postmaster@sepa.org.uk. Registered office: Strathallan House, Castle Business Park, S>rling FK9 4TZ. Under the Regula>on of Inves>gatory Powers Act 2000, the email system at SEPA may be subject to monitoring from >me to >me. Page 86
Page 87
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. OFFICIAL From: john bol Sent: 26 June 2022 17:30 To: Planning SW <planning.sw@sepa.org.uk> Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Dear Sir/Madam, I asked the planning officer dealing with the above applica>on for a contact with in SEPA who is dealing with this project but unfortunately they have only supplied a general email address. In regard to your statement, the design and access statement issued with the application stated “ It has been assumed that a Flood Risk Assessment is not applicable for this application as the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is over 5m above the me level of the watercourse and approximately 24m from the burn running North to South in close proximity to the Eastern boundary. If flooding is to occur to the dwelling the water level would be above all the rooftops within the village, and common sense would dictate that this is not a feasibility. The outline of the dwelling is outwith the SEPA flood zone as indicated on your floodzone maps.This was accepted at registration of the planning application, so we have to assume this was the case as no Flood Risk Assessment was required for the recent exten to the neighbouring property which is on a similar level and distance from water courses.There is mention within your statement of a Flood Risk Assessment from a previous application, this flood risk assessment does not relate to this application as the design is fundamentally different, the same applies to photographs quoted, we or our client do not have access to such photographs or hard evidence of what they are. The statement in regard to the temporary caravans, within the design and access statement and the drawings, we specifically stated that the caravans are temporary and to be removed after construction of the dwelling, is there a reason why you have presumed will be a permanent feature ? It would be helpful if you could confirm the required floor levels for the 1:200 year flood level plus the allowance for the updated climate change to compare with our finished floor level. If possible could we have a discussion to find a way forward with this applica>on ? Regards john bol b3a <Contributor Response 19_01738_PP.pdf><FRA 19_01738_PP.pdf> Page 87
Page 88
From: Rozy Shepherd Subject: RE: Application 21/02691/PP: photographs referenced in Flood Risk Observations (dated 25 Feb 2022) Date: 29 July 2022 at 15:05 To: Cc: Antwi, Tiwaah P TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk, David Cameron Hi John, An FRA would s1ll be required for this applica1on, and the increased embankment / bund would also need to be included in the FRA if you wish to construct this, as a bund could also result in reducing floodplain storage/increasing downstream flood risk. Also, as it’s not a formal Flood Protec1on Scheme, its unlikely to be acceptable to SEPA. Kind regards, Rozy Rozy Shepherd Analyst | JBA Consulting From: Sent: 27 July 2022 16:33 To: Rozy Shepherd < Cc: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Applica1on 21/02691/PP: photographs referenced in Flood Risk Observa1ons (dated 25 Feb 2022) Rozy, Thank you for your reply, I appreciate that we have to submit any further details to the planning department, but if we could establish that the reinstatement of a banking to the burn as suggested in my last email, would in principle, be acceptable, it would remove an elongated consulta1on were we are trying to guess what is acceptable as the planning officer did ini1ally refer me to you rather than the planning department contact you directly. regards john bol b3a On 27 Jul 2022, at 15:59, Rozy Shepherd < > wrote: Hi John, Apologies for my delay in ge]ng back to you. Regarding your email below, the photographs were taken at a flood event in 2012. The cause of the flood event does not change our posi1on regarding flood risk at the site, and as such an FRA would s1ll be required (we note also that SEPA have requested one). Regarding your second paragraph below, we have been asked by Argyll and Bute Council that new material is submi`ed through planning rather than directly to us. Please can any new submissions be made via planning and any calls related would need to be arranged with the planning officer. Kind regards, Rozy Rozy Shepherd Analyst | JBA Consulting From: Sent: 18 July 2022 15:24 To: Rozy Shepherd < Cc: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Re: Applica1on 21/02691/PP: photographs referenced in Flood Risk Observa1ons (dated 25 Feb 2022) Rozy, Many thanks for the email, and I managed to download the photos and forward them to the client for comment, unfortunately they have been on holiday but back yesterday. Do we know when these photographs were taken and what the circumstances were, as the applicant has been informed that this may have been due to a tree falling further up stream and the water being diverted ? But the applicant has suggested the following, that the exis1ng gate be removed and replaced with fencing and form an increased embankment on the West side of the burn ( presumably as it was before the forma1on of the accesss to the gate) to mnimise any spillage on to their land. The photograph seems to show a low level of water where the caravan is presently situated, but it should be borne in mind that the house will be situated well beyond this point at 25m from the burn. I will call at some point tomorrow to discuss the above . Page 88
Page 89
Regards john bol b3a On 4 Jul 2022, at 13:48, Rozy Shepherd < > wrote: Dear John, Following your call last week in rela1on to applica1on 21/02691/PP, the photographs that were referenced in our Flood Risk Observa1ons dated 25 February 2022 are located on applica1on number 18/02686/PP on the Argyll and Bute planning portal. The photos are included with the objec1on from Nigel Stewart, dated 16 April 2019 and are of flooding in 2012 from the small burn on site. Our main reasoning for asking for an FRA is because of this small watercourse along the eastern side of the site that caused flooding to the site in 2012. Kind regards, Rozy Rozy Shepherd Analyst | JBA Consulting JBA Consulting, The Library, St. Philip’s Courtyard, Church Hill, Coleshill, Warwickshire, B46 3AD. Telephone: Visit our new website at www.jbaconsulting.com. This email is covered by the JBA Consulting email disclaimer JBA Consulting is a trading name of Jeremy Benn Associates Limited, registered in England, company number 03246693, 1 Broughton Park, Old Lane North, Broughton, Skipton, North Yorkshire, BD23 3FD. Page 89
Page 90
From: Planning SW k Subject: Automatic reply: PLANNING APPLICATION REF. 21/02691/PP Land West of Stratholm, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll and Bute Date: 26 June 2022 at 17:29 To: john bol j We confirm receipt of your email and if you have requested a response we will respond to you as soon as we can. Please note that we may take longer to respond to your email than usual. If you wish to make an environmental data or freedom of information request please follow the advice on our webpage, https://www.sepa.org.uk/about-us/access-to-information/ Kind regards, Planning Service South West SEPA Information on our planning service along with guidance for planning authorities, developers and any other interested parties is available on our website at https://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/land/planning/ Page 90
Page 91
From: Antwi, Tiwaah P TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk Subject: Application <21/02691/PP> [OFFICIAL] Date: 24 June 2022 at 11:47 To: Classifica(on: OFFICIAL Hi John, Following our discussion this morning, I can confirm we do not have a direct email for a SEPA rep in rela?on to the above. However, as men?oned earlier Peter Min?ng is the Case Officer on the consulta?on and the email we have for him is the generic one . David Cameron our internal Flood Risk consultant can be reached on I shall separately contact them at them as well. Kind regards, Tiwaah Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll and Bute Council. 01546604035 ?waahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk 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. Page 91
Page 92
From: Subject: Re: RE Form submission from: Planning enquiries <21/02691/PP> [OFFICIAL] Date: 5 May 2022 at 11:25 To: Antwi, Tiwaah P TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk Reply to your letter dated 28th April 2022. regards john bol b3a Clachan Plann let 040522.pdf On 28 Apr 2022, at 15:07, Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> wrote: Classification: OFFICIAL Hi John, It was nice speaking to you on the above application regarding the outstanding concerns from both SEPA and the Council's Flood Risk officer. See attached requesting for additional details to address the concerns raised and as discussed, should you wish to directly contact the officers involved, their details would be on the consultee responses made publicly available online. I hope this finds you well and look forward to hear from you soon. Kind regards, Tiwaah P Antwi Planning Officer (MAKI) Development Management Development and Economic Growth Argyll & Bute Council. 01546 604035 tiwaahp.antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: maki, planning <planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 25 April 2022 09:10 To: Antwi, Tiwaah P <TiwaahP.Antwi@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: FW: Form submission from: Planning enquiries - 21/02691/PP [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL -----Original Message----- From: Argyll and Bute Council via Argyll and Bute Council <website@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 25 April 2022 09:06 To: maki, planning <planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Form submission from: Planning enquiries - 21/02691/PP Submitted on Monday, 25 April, 2022 - 09:05 Submitted by anonymous user: 10.22.2.55 Submitted values are: ==Your details== Name: john bol Email address: Telephone number: 07511691757 Address: Land West Of Strathholm Clachan Tarbert Argyll And Bute Location: Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay Enquiry: planning application ref 21/02691/PP, this application was due for a decision on 9th April, I have previously emailed asking when the planning officer will make comments in regard to design and comments etc and also telephoned and was informed I would receive a call back but nothing as yet. we have not received a letter asking for an extension to the time period allowed for a decision , so could you please inform me when it is likely someone will be in contact. regards. john bol b3a The results of this submission may be viewed at: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/node/51198/submission/130513 --- ________________________________ Argyll and Bute Council classify the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. The adopted classifications are: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Non public sector business i.e. does not require protection. OFFICIAL Routine public sector business, operations and services. OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Particularly sensitive information that can be shared on a need to know basis, where inappropriate access or release could have damaging consequences. Disclosure in response to FOISA should be verified with the data owner prior to release. OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE PERSONAL Particularly sensitive information that can be shared on a need to know basis relating to an identifiable individual, where inappropriate access or release could have damaging consequences. For example, where relating to investigations, vulnerable individuals, or the personal / medical records of people. OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE COMMERCIAL Commercial or market-sensitive information, including that subject to statutory or regulatory obligations, that may be damaging to Argyll and Bute Council, or to a commercial partner if improperly accessed. Disclosure in response to FOISA should be verified with the data owner prior to release. --- ________________________________ Argyll and Bute Council classify the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. The adopted classifications are: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Non public sector business i.e. does not require protection. OFFICIAL Routine public sector business operations and services Page 92
Page 93
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE AND SITING OF 2 TEMPORARY CARAVANS (RETROSPECTIVE), ERECTION OF TIMBER STORAGE SHED (RETROSPECTIVE) INSTALLATION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, FORMATION OF CAR PARKING AREA AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AT LAND WEST OF STRATHHOLM CLACHAN TARBET ARGYLL AND BUTE PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 21/02691/PP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0009/LRB 7th May 2024 Page 93 Agenda Item 3b
Page 94
STATEMENT OF CASE The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Lee Wheeler (‘the appellant’). The planning application, reference number 21/02691/PP for the Erection of dwellinghouse and siting of 2 temporary caravans (retrospective), erection of timber storage shed (retrospective) installation of sewage treatment plant, formation of car parking area and associated works at Land West Of Strathholm, Clachan (“the appeal site”) was refused under delegated powers on the 24th January 2024. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town & 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 issue in relation to the case are as follows:- - Whether sufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area and consequently meet the requirements of NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 policies 55 and 57. The Report of Handling (attached) sets out the Council’s assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION It is considered that no new material information has been raised in the appellant’s submission. A detailed planning policy assessment (which was relevant at the time of the assessment of the planning application) and all other material planning considerations is covered in the Report of Handling. Members will be aware that since the planning authority issued the decision notice, LDP2 has been adopted and that the LDP (2015) and LDP SG (2016) no longer form part of the development plan. However, the reason for refusal refers to the most relevant LDP2 planning policies to the main issue at hand, namely LDP2 policies 55 and 57. References to LDP policy LDP 10 and SG Page 94
Page 95
LDP SERV 7 should be disregarded. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. COMMENT ON APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION Having regard to the detailed grounds for review set out in the appellant’s submission, it is noted the submission focusses on procedural concerns with the planning application rather than the reason for refusal. For clarity, and in response to the point raised that the ‘lack of an accurate 1:200 year flood level being at the heart of the issues’ as noted by SEPA in their response dated 9th March 2022, ‘The SEPA Flood Maps do not provide information on flood risk from small watercourses…’. This response also goes onto note the requirement for the appellant to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment. Similarly, a response dated 25th February 2022 from the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor notes the need for a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) that quantifies the 1:200 year plus climate change fluvial and surface water flood events. As such, the matter of flood risk was a live issue prior to the publication of NPF4 on 13th February 2023. Importantly, it should be noted that the burden of proof (in this case the need for a sufficient FRA) is on the applicant. Despite the passage of time, the appellant has not produced the evidence required by the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor and SEPA who still maintain the need for a sufficient FRA in their correspondence dated and the 8th September 2023 and 19th September 2023 respectively. Indeed, SEPA (a Statutory Consultee) maintain a holding objection to the planning application. In summary, none of the procedural points raised by the appellant raise any material considerations that would justify allowing the appeal, the determination of which must be based on the development plan at the point the decision is made. 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. It is considered there are no material considerations that indicate that the proposed development should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out in the Report of Handling and decision notice, it is considered that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. As such, it is respectfully requested that the request for a review be dismissed. Appended documents: Report of Handling. Page 95
Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 97
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 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: 21/02691/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Lee Wheeler Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse and siting of 2 temporary caravans (retrospective), erection of timber storage shed (retrospective) installation of sewage treatment plant, formation of car parking area and associated works Site Address: Land West Of Strathholm Clachan Tarbert Argyll And Bute 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 dwellinghouse Retrospective siting of 2 temporary caravans Retrospective erection of timber storage shed Formation of car parking area and associated works (ii) Other specified operations Installation of sewage treatment plant (B) RECOMMENDATION: The proposal is recommended for approval of Planning Permission subject to conditions and reasons appended below. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Roads and Infrastructure Services No objection subject to conditions appended below – 02.03.2022 Page 97
Page 98
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 Scottish Water No objection – 14.02.2022 Flood Risk Advisor Defer Decision – 25.02.2022 Subsequently, additional information was submitted in the absence of an FRA report and as such, the floods officer retains their initial recommendation to defer decision – 08.09.2023 Transport Scotland No objection – 21.02.2022 Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Initial consultee response was a holding objection – 10.03.2022 Subsequent response following applicant’s discussion with SEPA in the absence of any submission of the required FRA, has not resolved the concerns raised. SEPA confirmed holding objection – 13.12.2022 Notwithstanding, the applicant submitted further information to the Planning Authority in support of the application without an FRA report on 24 July 2023. SEPA was again consulted and continue to maintain their holding objection in the absence of an FRA – 20.09.2023 Various correspondences between the agent, planning authority and SEPA regarding the need for an FRA has since taken place. The applicant was given time to provide this information as requested but has failed to do so and confirmed the application should be determined without an FRA as of 11.12.2023 (D) HISTORY: 04/00792/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse (Outline) – Approved 29.06.04 07/01005/OUT – Erection of dwellinghouse (Outline) (Renewal of above permission) – Approved 26.06.07 10/00979/PP – Erection of dwellinghouse – Approved 26.07.2010 18/01748/PP – Erection of 4 timber holiday let log cabins and installation of sewage treatment plant – Withdrawn 30.11.2018 18/02686/PP – Erection of 2 holiday lodges – Refused 11.07.2019. 19/01738/PP – Erection of 2no holiday lodges – Refused 09.07.2021 (E) PUBLICITY: Page 98
Page 99
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 Regulation 20 Advert (expiry date: 06.09.2022) Neighbour notification (expiry date: 08.02.2022) (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Two representations were received for the application – one in objection and the other, a neutral comment from JM Wyllie, Smithy Croft Clachan Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6XL Margaret Pratt, Birchfield Whitehouse Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6XS (On behalf of the community council) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: A concern was raised in relation to the site having flooded during the last two significant flooding events in 2012 and 2015 resulting in overspill around the site and beyond. [Comment: This point is noted and both SEPA and the Council’s flood advisor were consulted on the application. Their response are noted above and are taken into consideration as part of this assessment.] Concern raised related to the lack of passing places along the proposed access to the site being in poor condition. The access is also used by children and the elderly to access a recreational space within the grounds of the old village hall. [Comment: This point is noted, and the local roads engineer was consulted and has raised no objection subject to condition relating to access and parking for the proposal.] Further concern was raised in relation to the potential presence of Japanese knotweed on the site due to inadequate treatment in the past. [Comment: This point is noted. However, there is no substantive evidence regarding the presence of Japanese knotweed which in any event could be addressed by a suitably worded planning condition.] Another concern was raised regarding the use of the retrospective siting of two caravan on the site, being associated with a form of tourist accommodation, due to associated amenity, noise and parking issues. [Comment: This is noted. However, at this time, it is understood the retrospective siting of the caravans are for the purposes of construction. Any future use of the caravans as self-catering/letting units would require the separate planning permission.] Page 99
Page 100
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert EIAR topics below) (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐ Yes ☒ No (if Yes attach as an appendix) (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☒Yes ☐No (if Yes insert summary of key issues below) This Supporting Planning, Design and Access Statement has been prepared to accompany a planning application for the construction of a three bedroom, single storey dwelling (as the applicant’s main residence) with associated landscaping within the land West of Stratholm in Clachan. The location of the site is positioned off the existing track leading from the village hall to Stratholm. The ground levels are relatively steep with approximately 6m difference in ground levels from the water course to the existing trackway. The overall principle of a dwelling on this site was established with outline planning granted for a single dwelling in 2007, Ref 07/01005/OUT. The outline of the dwelling is out with the SEPA flood zone as indicated on their flood zone maps. It has therefore been assumed that a Flood Risk Assessment is not applicable for this application as the finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is over 5m above the mean level of the watercourse and approximately 24m from the burn running North to South in close proximity to the Eastern boundary. The site (1035 sq.m) is currently unused land but does have temporary accommodation and toilets for the construction phase of the development positioned on site. The dwelling will be 130 sq.m on a single floor level, which equates to 12.5% of the plot. Landscaping with the retention of existing trees and shrubs and a balancing pond, to help alleviate problems with any blockage to the burn, and permeable footpaths, ramps and roadways is proposed. The dwelling is designed to be inserted seamlessly into the hillside with the choice of natural stone wall to the front elevation and off white render to all other remaining elevations, barrel vaulted grass covered roof which minimises any impact on the local landscape to ensure integration when viewed from the A83. Surface water will be via soakaways positioned close to the garden approx. 5m min from the dwelling, all roadways and footpaths will be Page 100
Page 101
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 constructed from permeable materials for natural drainage into the ground. Foul water will be taken to a treatment plant treated liquid discharged into the local watercourse. (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes list supporting documents below) (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of the terms and heads of agreement and, grounds for refusal if not completed within 4 months below) (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of direction below) (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 Page 101
Page 102
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure Local Development Plan Schedules Area for Action 13/3 – Clachan Village – Traffic management and environmental enhancement. ‘Supplementary Guidance to the Argyll and Bute Local Plan 2015’ (Adopted March 2016 & December 2016) Natural Environment SG LDP ENV 1 – Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity Sites (LNCS) SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Landscape and Design SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape General Housing Development SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision Sustainable Siting and Design SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Resources and Consumption SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants & Wastewater Systems SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage & 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 – Risk Framework Transport (Including Core Paths) SG LDP TRAN 4 – New & Existing, Public Roads & Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision Page 102
Page 103
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. Third Party Representations Consultation Reponses Planning History ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The Examination by Scottish Government Reporters to the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 has now concluded and the Examination Report has been published (13th June 2023). The Examination Report is a material consideration of significant weight and may be used as such until the conclusion of the LDP2 Adoption Process. Consequently, the Proposed Local Development Plan 2 as recommended to be modified by the Examination Report and the published Non Notifiable Modifications is a material consideration in the determination of all planning and related applications. Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development 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 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Homes for People Page 103
Page 104
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 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 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes confirm date of screening opinion and reference below) (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide summary detail of PAC below) (M) Has a Sustainability Checklist been submitted: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide detail below) (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide detail below) (O) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details below) (P)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: N/A (P)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 4.20 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 (P)(iii) Woodland Page 104
Page 105
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 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 (P)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP 2015 Settlement Strategy LDP DM 1 (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Main Town Settlement Area ☒Key Rural Settlement Area ☐Village/Minor Settlement Area ☐Rural Opportunity Area ☐Countryside Zone ☐Very Sensitive Countryside Zone ☐Greenbelt ABC pLDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP 2015 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A ABC pLDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P)(v) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The subject of this application is a proposed 3 bedroom single storey detached property. The application site is the immediate vacant land West of Strathholm in Clachan, measuring approx. 1035 sq. m. The site is bounded by vacant land northward; the Clachan burn runs parallel with the A83 along the southern boundary; and the retrospective caravan and timber shed are located north east. The site is accessible from an existing shared private single track access layout connecting the site to the U057 public road located some 300 metres westerly. Principle Of relevance, NPF4 Policy 9 sets out that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or explicitly supported by policies in the Local Development Plan (LDP). NPF4 Policy 14 generally supports development proposals designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. NPF4 Policy 15 expects development proposals to contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. NPF4 Policy 16 sets out that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances. NPF4 Policy 17 is set out to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Page 105
Page 106
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) 2015, the proposed site includes land within a Key rural settlement zone of Clachan wherein Policy LDP DM 1 gives encouragement to sustainable forms of up to and including medium scale development on appropriate sites. The principle for constructing a dwellinghouse on this plot has been established almost two decades ago under the initial application 04/00792/OUT with the description “Erection of dwellinghouse”. This application was granted on 29 June 2004, having been assessed against a precursor LDP. This was subsequently renewed until 2010 for a similar residential property size on the site which was granted under the application 10/00979/PP. Though the 2010 planning permission has lapsed as of 2013, it remains a material consideration to the assessment and determination of the current application. The proposed development by reason of its small scale and location in a key rural settlement is considered acceptable and consistent with Policy LDP DM 1. By reason of the established residential area and the geographical scale of the wider environment within which the site is located; and its compliance with the existing settlement pattern within rural Argyll coupled with the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development, people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. Thus, the proposal also complies with the NPF4 Policy 15; and ABC LDP 2015 Policies LDP DM 1 and LDP 8. Drawing the above together, the principle of establishing this small scale residential development at the site is considered acceptable, subject to the acceptability of the detailed matters set out below. Local character and appearance The application site is located outwith any local or national designation. Even so, the proposal does not give rise to any immediate impact upon the natural or established environment. The local settlement pattern within Clachan village itself is of a well- established residential area with similar property types and sizes on moderate plot sizes. With the proposal not being an exception, it would be located adjacent to the Stratholm – a detached bungalow which sits within a vast plot, thus conforming to the local settlement pattern. The proposal is for a single storey three bedroom square shaped detached building overlooking the Clachan burn and the mature tree line established between the burn and along the A83. The proposed house is designed to have a curved sedum roof with three rooflights located central. The proposed finishing materials include off white render and natural stone to the walls, grey fascias, sedum roof, and grey framed windows and doors. In this regard, the scale, massing and finishing materials of the proposal are considered to be in keeping with its immediate surrounding. It would not have materially detrimental effect to visual amenity due to its location which will be significantly screened by the established trees along the river bank. It also does not raise any concerns with respect to residential amenity (overlooking/overshadowing). Furthermore, the dwelling would also not hinder any key viewpoints. Based on the above, the location, massing and design of the proposed dwellinghouse subject to conditions are considered acceptable and would not significantly detract from the immediate neighbouring property or surrounding area. Page 106
Page 107
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 The proposal is therefore considered consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policies 14, 16 and 17 and ABC LDP 2015 Policies LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG Sustainable. Flooding The principal issue with respect to this application lies with flood risk associated with the site. The proposed site partially falls within the functional floodplain, based on the SEPA Flood Maps indicating there is a medium risk of flooding from the Clachan Burn. Consequently, both SEPA and the council’s Flood Risk Advisor were consulted and have both raised concerns regarding the risk of flooding resulting from this proposal. The following is extracted from the Flood Risk Advisor’s response dated 25th February 2022: “No information regarding historic flooding has been submitted with the application or provided within the FRA submitted within a previous application at this site (19/01738/PP). However, a member of the Clachan Catchment Project Group has previously informed that there have been 3 major flooding incidents in the last decade (as of October 2019) that have severely affected properties in Clachan. These flood events include both the 2012 and 2015 floods which involved large quantities of flood water to overspill down from the upper ground of Quinhill (to the north of the site). There are photos from the 2012 flood event that show the floodwater overspill on to the site from the gate in the north-east corner, the source of the floodwater is unclear, but it is likely to have been from the small watercourse or from surface water. The site is partially overlain by the indicative limits of fluvial flooding as per the SEPA Flood Maps (2014). The flood risk noted on the SEPA maps is associated with the Clachan Burn. Updated modelling undertaken by AECOM as part of the 2019 Clachan Flood Study confirms this expected risk. With reference to the supplied cross section of the site, the proposed dwellinghouse is to be located at an elevation approximately 5m high than the banks of the Clachan Burn, with a Finished Floor Level of 24.575mAOD. As such it is not expected that the proposed dwellinghouse is located within the 1:200 year fluvial floodplain associated with the Clachan Burn. The small watercourse to the east of the site has a catchment area of <3km2 and is thus too small to have its risk quantified on the SEPA fluvial flood maps (2014). Photographs taken from the 2012 flood event (that shows flooding on the site) are likely associated with this watercourse. The supplied FRA makes reference to the SEPA fluvial flood extent and an extract of the Clachan flood study (2019), neither of which includes flood risk from the small burn at the eastern boundary of the site. Supplied photographs included in application 19/01738/PP show flooding from the 2012 flood event at the site and the source of this water is unknown (though likely to be either from the small burn and/or surface water). However, the previously submitted FRA has not quantified this risk. It is therefore recommended that new hydraulic modelling be undertaken to quantify the risk. This should include modelling of the burn (including blockage risk) and may include modelling of surface water. The property should be located outside of the 1:200-year floodplain with finished floor levels set to the 1 in 200 year flood level plus an allowance for climate change plus 0.6 m freeboard. Per SEPA guidance, a 56% uplift for climate change should be applied.” Consultation responses from SEPA also raised objection to the proposal (and together with the Flood risk advisor) have requested that a flood risk assessment Page 107
Page 108
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 (FRA) is submitted to accompany the application. It is understood further correspondence took place between SEPA and the applicant following SEPA’s initial response dated 9th March 2022. SEPA has since reiterated their objection in an email dated 13th December 2022 as the applicant has failed to provide the required FRA to the planning authority for further review. The applicant, following further correspondence with SEPA who retained their holding objection for the third time on 19th September 2023, confirmed they would like for the application determined as it stands and in the absence of an FRA. In view of the above, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that the development will not exacerbate flood risk associated with the site, the proposal is deemed contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 7 on grounds that it will place persons and property at greater risk of flooding than currently exists. Resultantly, the application is recommended for refusal in that it is contrary to the provisions of the Local Development Plan as it relates to flooding. Policy 22 of NPF4 sets out that it will be demonstrated by the applicant that: All risks of flooding are understood and addressed; There is no reduction in floodplain capacity, increased risk for others, or a need for future flood protection schemes; The development remains safe and operational during floods; Flood resistant and resilient materials and construction methods are used; Future adaptions can be made to accommodate the effects of climate change. It is noted that in the absence of the a FRA in relation to potential flood risk posed by an identified minor water course, as requested by both SEPA and the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor, the proposal would conflict with NPF4 Policy 22, notably criterion A. Given the above noted policy requirements would establish whether the principle of development is acceptable insofar as it related to flood risk, it is not considered a planning condition would be able to address the above policy conflict. Biodiversity The proposal does not relate to, nor is it within immediate proximity of any nature conservation designation. The site is a vacant land with limited agricultural and biodiversity value. The proposal does not include any detail of proposed biodiversity enhancements that would be delivered by the development however in this instance it is considered that this could reasonably be secured by suspensive condition seeking improvements to be considered and delivered alongside proposals for landscape, boundary treatment and surface treatment for the development. similarly, a condition requiring appropriate soil management practices would also be appropriate. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policies 3 and 5A and ABC LDP Policies LDP 3, SG LDP ENV 1 and SG LDP ENV 11. Water/drainage The application shows no indication of water supply source to the development but intends to rely on private waste water treatment plant with a soakaway. The treated water will then be discharged into the nearby watercourse as noted in the design and access statement. Page 108
Page 109
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 The nature of the development falls below SEPA’s threshold for consultation on this ground. Consequently, SEPA’s Standing Advice on small scale private drainage system has been taken into account solely for this aspect of the development. The applicant is therefore advised to consult SEPA for a Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) licence to ensure the treatment level meets policy requirements. Consultation with Scottish Water (SW) raised no objection to the application and indicates there are public infrastructure for both water supply and waste water treatment within close proximity to the site. This is however subject to SW’s further review and confirming availability of capacity for the proposal. In view of the above, it is expected that the developer seeks to connect to the public infrastructure where possible prior to seeking private alternatives with the exception of surface water drainage which SW has confirmed they will not be accepting connection for. On this basis, the proposal subject to conditions is considered consistent with the provisions of NPF 4 policy 22C, and 22D and ABC LDP 2015 Policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 1. Roads The development seeks to rely on the existing shared private access and provide four car parking spaces. The local Roads and Infrastructure department was consulted and has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant requirements of NPF4 Policy 13, and ABC LDP Policy LDP 11, SG LDP TRAN 2, SG LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6. Matters Raised by Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (as modified by Examination) Proposed Local Development Plan 2 as recommended to be modified by the Examination Report is now a significant material consideration. In this instance it is considered that this application would conflict with LDP2 Policies 55 and 57 based on the issues explained above in relation to flood risk and the absence of a satisfactory site specific flood risk assessment, given the site’s location and historic flooding. Conclusion The proposal would contribute towards housing supply within an existing key rural settlement and help support construction employment. As such social, environmental and economic benefits are associated with the proposed development. However, the proposal is considered to be contrary with the Development Plan when taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. In such circumstances, planning permission should be refused. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Refused: Page 109
Page 110
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 Insufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22; ABC LDP policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 7 and pLDP2 policies 55 and 57 on grounds that, in the absence of substantive evidence, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. Specifically, the applicant has failed to provide a flood risk assessment to allow further consideration of these matters. Given that the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor and SEPA (a statutory consultee on flooding) have both objected and the applicant has not provided any evidence in response to demonstrate that the development will not be subject to flood risk nor exacerbate flood risk elsewhere, then the development can only be considered to conflict with the aforementioned relevant policy of NPF4, the adopted LDP and pLDP2 as they relate to flood risk. (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 (If yes provide detail below) Author of Report: Tiwaah Antwi Date: 12.12.2023 Reviewing Officer: Bryn Bowker Date: 24.01.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 110
Page 111
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 21/02691/PP 1. Insufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22; ABC LDP policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 7 and pLDP2 policies 55 and 57 on grounds that, in the absence of substantive evidence, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. Specifically, the applicant has failed to provide a flood risk assessment to allow further consideration of these matters. Given that the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor and SEPA (a statutory consultee on flooding) have both objected and the applicant has not provided any evidence in response to demonstrate that the development will not be subject to flood risk nor exacerbate flood risk elsewhere, then the development can only be considered to conflict with the aforementioned relevant policy of NPF4, the adopted LDP and pLDP2 as they relate to flood risk. Page 111
Page 112
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 21/02691/PP (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 (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: Insufficient evidence has been submitted to fully understand and address flood risk associated with the site and surrounding area. As such, the proposal would conflict with the provisions NPF4 Policy 22; ABC LDP policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 7 and pLDP2 policies 55 and 57 on grounds that, in the absence of substantive evidence, it would lead to a greater risk of flooding than currently exists for future occupants of the proposed development, and for others in the area. Specifically, the applicant has failed to provide a flood risk assessment to allow further consideration of these matters. Given that the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor and SEPA (a statutory consultee on flooding) have both objected and the applicant has not provided any evidence in response to demonstrate that the development will not be subject to flood risk nor exacerbate flood risk elsewhere, then the development can only be considered to conflict with the aforementioned relevant policy of NPF4, the adopted LDP and pLDP2 as they relate to flood risk. Page 112
Page 113
Location Plan Scale: 1:12501 No. Date Revision Notes ByZone Sheet No. Scale Project IDProject Manager Drawn By Reviewed By Date CAD File Name 1067 02 1:1250 @ A1 clachan jb December 2021 clachan survey.vwx 1 of Sheet Title Project Title location plan Proposed Dwelling West of Stratholm Clachan Consultant Design Firm PLANNING b3a The Whisky Bond, 2 Dawson Road Glasgow G4 9SS No. Date Issue Notes Page 113
Page 114
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 115
Land West of Stratholm, Clachan Local Review Board Ref. 224/0009/LRB Comments on Planning Authority Statement of Case dated 7th May 2024. The planning Authority has stated that “none of the procedural points raised by the appellant raise any material considerations that would justify allowing the appeal” We disagree strongly with this statement as we were constantly requested for an FRA when the flood levels, which are legally required to be issued by SEPA/local authority, were not being provided together with the fact that the local authorities legal team blocked the appeal to the Scottish Government stipulates in volumes the level of maladministration of this application, being refused information and being passed from one person to another which entailed a vast amount of time and money wasted trying to obtain the requisite information from the local authority and their Flood Risk consultants. Again we emphasise that because it took over 12 months to obtain flood level information, which was received from an obscure source, this entailed the application coming into the jurisdiction of NPF4, which in turn negated the flood barriers proposals. We have still not received any comments on the design of the proposal which again given the length of time the application was live is disappointing together with the reason for demanding an FRA was on unverified photographs ( no investigation to the cause !!), as it was deemed when the flood level was disclosed that there was no issued of flooding from the clachan burn, so the applicant is prepared to take this application to the Court of Session if required, should this appeal not be successful. Regards John Bol b3a Page 115 Agenda Item 3c
Page 116
This page is intentionally left blank