Notice_of_Review Combined
Argyll and Bute Council · 21 May 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 21 May 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
!"#$ $!"" % &'()*& +&, * +
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
* *
Page 8
Page 9
'
Page 10
- *
Page 11
& , - - ./0/% %1% %/% !!$$##$2)!! - ' - - - & 3 /* 3 - +
Page 12
Page 13
& ' - -
Page 14
* &
Page 15
4 5 6 7 *- - 3 8
Page 16
Page 17
9. -& /* :
Page 18
/ /*7 * 5 1 / 5
Page 19
/ / 5
Page 20
/*
Page 21
No embedded text on this page.
Page 22
/* 5 6;8 5 %< /*
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
2 * /* 39 5 1< /* 5
Page 25
5 %
Page 26
No embedded text on this page.
Page 27
5 0
Page 28
+
Page 29
9 4 5 0
Page 30
+
Page 31
. 9 = =
Page 32
> ; $ !? $ @!?2! A # / ;
Page 33
=* ( & &,
Page 34
Page 35
:
Page 36
/ /*7 * 5 .
Page 37
/ 1 / 5
Page 38
/*
Page 39
No embedded text on this page.
Page 40
/ 5 6;8 5 9.
Page 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
2 /* 5 39 5 %< /* 5 * /*
Page 43
5 1< /* %
Page 44
No embedded text on this page.
Page 45
5 1
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
- 6
Page 48
Page 49
3 + *8
Page 50
No embedded text on this page.
Page 51
Page 52
No embedded text on this page.
Page 53
2
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.
Page 55
Page 56
No embedded text on this page.
Page 57
#
Page 58
No embedded text on this page.
Page 59
" 39 9;
Page 60
Page 61
-9
Page 62
* - / % .
Page 63
/
Page 64
Page 65
>
Page 66
Page 67
No embedded text on this page.
Page 68
1 #@ ?B/
Page 69
17
Page 70
No embedded text on this page.
Page 71
7 0 - 07
Page 72
;
Page 73
0 - 0 -
Page 74
(* &
Page 75
Page 76
+
Page 77
Page 78
- 3 + 3 &
Page 79
Page 80
* + - 7
Page 81
Page 82
3 - 5 6< "!! 8 > -
Page 83
No embedded text on this page.
Page 84
* 4 5 - 6
Page 85
Page 86
* <
Page 87
3 , 8& - & 1 & - + - -
Page 88
Page 89
& >
Page 90
+ 3 4 5 - / & A - 3
Page 91
Page 92
& /
Page 93
Page 94
3 *
Page 95
Page 96
63 - +
Page 97
Page 98
Page 99
< 8 C
Page 100
Page 101
-&
Page 102
: -7 3 , + 3 - D
Page 103
6 - ,
Page 104
8& :
Page 105
' * ,
Page 106
+ 3& 0- * +
Page 107
Page 108
Page 109
E; D 5 6< "!! 8 / , + -
Page 110
No embedded text on this page.
Page 111
-
Page 112
7
Page 113
- - 3
Page 114
), , & :
Page 115
3+ 3 3 3 *-
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
6 < -
Page 119
-
Page 120
87
Page 121
3
Page 122
+ *
Page 123
*- *
Page 124
*- ' - < & =+
Page 125
3 3 *-
Page 126
-- : / 3
Page 127
4 5 0- 7
Page 128
< * < * 37 3 3 7 3 3
Page 129
3
Page 130
-- *- 3
Page 131
Page 132
Page 133
3
Page 134
Page 135
*
Page 136
Page 137
+ 3 5 6< "!! 8 ; - % - # 3 ;
Page 138
A
Page 139
- + 3
Page 140
+
Page 141
-
Page 142
7
Page 143
+
Page 144
3 3 * 3 - + 3
Page 145
Page 146
- + 3& :
Page 147
5 6< "!! 8 +
Page 148
- & + * - + & >
Page 149
3 *
Page 150
4 5 >
Page 151
3
Page 152
Page 153
* 4 5 + 3
Page 154
3
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
*
Page 158
Page 159
+ 3
Page 160
Page 161
+ 3 ' - - *
Page 162
*
Page 163
+ 3& 1 - * '
Page 164
* * -
Page 165
7 3 * F
Page 166
-
Page 167
9
Page 168
3 *G - + 3 & + 3 7 7 *
Page 169
+ 3 - + - +
Page 170
Page 171
* -
Page 172
7 3 -
Page 173
4 1 <7 3 * 7 7 & 5 : / 0 + + 3
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
7 * -
Page 179
*
Page 180
4 5 : / 0 * - *
Page 181
-
Page 182
3 * 4 5 : / - 3 , , + +
Page 183
Page 184
- - & 1 * - *
Page 185
Page 186
+
Page 187
& =+ +
Page 188
Page 189
Page 190
Page 191
No embedded text on this page.
Page 192
- 4& 5 : / =+ +
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
- * - 3 *G - : / + 34 5 0- 7 *- - 7 + +
Page 197
Page 198
No embedded text on this page.
Page 199
- : / /9
Page 200
Page 201
No embedded text on this page.
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
3
Page 206
'
Page 207
3 + 3
Page 208
* 4 5 =+ +
Page 209
Page 210
- ' + 3
Page 211
* 3 : /
Page 212
6 * -
Page 213
8 3 + 3 *
Page 214
Page 215
4 5 / : 7 -7 3 , + 3 & :
Page 216
' * ,
Page 217
+ 3& : + -
Page 218
No embedded text on this page.
Page 219
- + 3
Page 220
& 0 - * 3 - + 37 -
Page 221
+
Page 222
Page 223
3 + 3
Page 224
Page 225
- + 3& -
Page 226
7
Page 227
+
Page 228
3
Page 229
: / 6&&
Page 230
3 8 3 3 *G - + 3 5 / > + 3 - && 3 -
Page 231
- 7 + + -
Page 232
3 - + - -
Page 233
Page 234
7
Page 235
+ * +
Page 236
- *7 +
Page 237
Page 238
No embedded text on this page.
Page 239
6 - 8 - & A
Page 240
- + 37
Page 241
; 7 )# 2 9!!2 9 "9!292!2# 2#9!"92!2
Page 242
09> 9 - - + 3
Page 243
Page 244
& / =
Page 245
29! 92!2#
Page 246
REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF FOUR DWELLINGHOUSES, INCLUDING FORMATION OF ACCESS AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND SOAKAWAY, LAND AT COULTORSAY FARM, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY (LPA REFERENCE 23/01028/PPP) GROUNDS FOR REVIEW Submitted on behalf of Rosemary and Neil Wood
Page 247
Page | 1 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant REQUEST FOR REVIEW IN RESPECT OF THE REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR THE ERECTION OF FOUR DWELLINGHOUSES, INCLUDING FORMATION OF ACCESS AND INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND SOAKAWAY, LAND AT COULTORSAY FARM, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY (LPA REFERENCE 23/01028/PPP) GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 1. Background: 1.1 At the time when the review application was submitted (May 2023) the application site was almost entirely within a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA) as defined in the now superseded Local Development Plan (see Figure 1 below). For some reason, assumed to be a drafting error, the ROA did not extend quite to the edge of the public highway. Figure 1: Extract from 2015 Local Development Plan Proposals Map 1.2 Whilst the ROA designation no longer exists, it was in place when the review application was submitted, and would furthermore have still been in place had the Council been able to determine the application within the statutory 2-month period. 1.3 In the Council’s Supplementary Guidance, with respect to ROAs, it said:
Page 248
Page | 2 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant “The ROAs have been mapped specifically with a view to identifying areas within which there is a general capacity to successfully absorb small scale housing development. This includes open countryside locations where appropriate forms of small- scale housing development will be in tune with landscape character and development pattern. Consequently, there is a presumption in favour of small-scale housing development within this zone, subject to on-going capacity evaluation. Conversely, there is a presumption against medium and large-scale housing development that would not be generally appropriate for these rural areas and would undermine the intentions of the settlement strategy.” 1.4 Small scale housing development was defined as being up to five dwellings. 1.5 The application site is also adjacent to, but not within, The Rinns of Islay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)/Special Protection Area (SPA), which is shown hatched on the LDP extract above. This site is designated primarily based on it regularly supporting populations of European importance of Annex 1 species (1986 and 1987) including Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus), Corncrake (Crex crex), Chough (Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax), Whooper Swan (Cygnus cygnus) and Greenland White- Fronted Goose (Anser albifrons flavirostris). 1.6 Prior to the submission of the review application, in April 2022, a pre- application enquiry in respect of the proposed development was submitted (LPA reference 22/00709/PREAPP). The response received on 18 May 2022 (Document 1) contained the following: “In this case the more northerly site is likely to be the most suitable, notwithstanding the councils hesitation regarding creating an artificial infill site beside Bruichladdich. It is recommended that the proposals for LDP 2 are reviewed. These are available on the Council’s planning web site”. 1.7 A further, more detailed, pre-application inquiry was submitted in April 2023, given the then recent adoption of the revised National Planning Framework. The encouraging response received was as follows (Document 2): “Of relevance, NPF4 Policy 9 sets out that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. NPF7 Policy 17c) sets out that new homes in remote rural areas will be supported where it supports and sustains
Page 249
Page | 3 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant existing fragile communities, supports identified local housing outcomes and is suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact NPF4 Policy 16f) sets out that new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited specified circumstances, which of relevance includes where there is an agreed timescale for build out; where the proposal is consistent with the plan spatial strategy and policies such as local living, and where the proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes. The concept of Local Living is further detailed in NPF4 Policy 15. The development is located within a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA) as defined by the LDP, wherein Policy DM1 envisages small scale development on appropriate sites, including the open countryside. As such, subject to an agreed build out timescale secured by planning condition, the proposal would meet the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16f). It is considered that the small scale of the proposed development and its rural location would reasonably comply with policies 2a), 15 and 17c) of NPF4 given the existing dispersed geographical scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home and support the community. This is underpinned by the broad settlement strategy policy contained within Policy LDP DM 1, LDP 5, LDP 8, LDP 10 and LDP 11 of the Local Development Plan. Drawing the above together, the principle of residential development at the site is considered acceptable in principle, subject to acceptability of the detailed matters set out below.” 1.8 Notwithstanding the confirmation from the original Planning Officer (Derek Wilson) that the application proposal would be able to be supported in principle, the application (after being with the Council for some 8 months), was allocated to a new Planning Officer (Francis Gillespie). Contrary to the advice provided by Mr Wilson, Mr Gillespie then recommended that planning permission should be refused for the following reason (Document 3): “The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form, layout and location, would introduce an urban character/form of
Page 250
Page | 4 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant development into this countryside setting which would have an adverse visual impact which would, as a result, have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP HOU (A) (B), LDP ACE 1, SG LDP Sustainable, SG LDP ENV 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, NPF4 policies 4a, 9b, 14, 16f) 17c) iii, and emerging LDP2 policies 02, 04, 05, and 08.” 1.9 Whilst it is fully accepted that pre-application advice cannot guarantee the outcome of a subsequent planning application, if it is to be of any value, such advice should be reasonably reliable. In particular, it is logical for an applicant to expect the advice made by Planning Officers regarding the principle of a development to be consistent with their subsequent recommendation following the receipt of a formal submission. 1.10 The attached awards of costs in relation to appeal APP/M1710/W/20/3256965 (Document 4), albeit an English decision, address the issue of the reliability of pre-application advice. As the Inspector stated: “Pre-application advice is provided informally and on a without prejudice basis. There may be circumstances where representations received during the course of a planning application justify making a departure from earlier advice. However, none of the responses in this case raise any matter that could not have been foreseen at the pre-application stage. The issues are clear and straightforward. Had the pre-application advice been negative then the appellants may not have proceeded with a planning application, and they would have avoided the costs of an appeal. Their application was submitted in good faith”. 1.11 There is a fair expectation that pre-application advice should be reliable and that potential applicants should not be given “false hope”. This is however exactly what has happened in the current case, the applicants believe that they were given false hope. Mr Wilson, on behalf of the Council, stated unambiguously that the principle of residential development at the site was considered to be acceptable. On the basis of his advice the applicants committed themselves to the payment of the required fee of £5,622 (£5,400 for the application and £222 for the newspaper advert). They were naturally extremely disappointed when, because of a change of Planning Officer, planning permission in principle was then ultimately refused.
Page 251
Page | 5 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant 2. Proposed Development: 2.1 The development proposed is, in principle, the erection of four dwellinghouses. All matters other than indicative siting and access are reserved for subsequent approval. A new access will be formed, and a septic tank (or treatment plant) and soakaway will also be provided. 3. Relevant Development Plan Policies: 3.1 Section 25 of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 states that “where in making any determination under the planning act regard is to be had to the Development Plan, the determination shall be in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”. 3.2 The Development Plan relevant to the current planning application now comprises: • The National Planning Framework (2023); and • The Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024). 3.3 Section 13 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 is now in force. This altered Section 24 of the 1997 Act to state that in the event of ‘any incompatibility’ between a provision of the National Planning Framework (‘the NPF’) and a provision of a Local Development Plan (‘the LDP’), whichever of them is the later in date is to prevail. National Planning Framework 3.4 The following polices of NPF4 were referred to in the reason for refusal of the review application: Policy 4 (Natural Places), which states that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. Policy 9 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings), which states inter alia that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), which states that development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places:
Page 252
Page | 6 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving physical and mental health. • Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces. • Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency • Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity. • Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions. • Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time. Policy 16 (Quality Homes), which states inter alia that development proposals for new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited circumstances where: i. The proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; and ii. The proposal is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and 20 minute neighbourhoods; iii. and either: • Delivery of sites is happening earlier than identified in the deliverable housing land pipeline. This will be determined by reference to two consecutive years of the Housing Land Audit evidencing substantial delivery earlier than pipeline timescales and that general trend being sustained; or • The proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes; or • The proposal is for smaller scale opportunities within an existing settlement boundary; or • The proposal is for the delivery of less than 50 affordable homes as part of a local authority supported affordable housing plan. Policy 17 (Rural Homes), which states that development proposals for new homes in remote rural areas will be supported where the proposal: i. Supports and sustains existing fragile communities; ii. Supports identified local housing outcomes; and iii. Is suitable in terms of location, access, and environmental impact.
Page 253
Page | 7 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant Local Development Plan 2 3.5 The following policies of the recently adopted Local Development Plan 2 were also referred to in the single reason for refusal: Policy 02 (Outwith Settlement Areas), which states that outwith the Settlement Areas shown on the proposals map, development will only be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that it accords with: • An allocation of this plan, or • Parts A, B or C as set out below, and • All other relevant policies of the LDP2. With respect to the third bullet point, particular attention is drawn to the need for development proposals to accord with Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. A – Countryside Areas Within the Countryside Areas there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies. In particular, the following types of development will be supported by the council, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, although such may still be required where there is evidence of any environmental risk: • Infill; or • Rounding off; or • Redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or • Previously developed sites. Note: Development adjacent to, but outwith settlement boundaries which are delineated in the Proposals Maps will not constitute infill, rounding off or redevelopment. Policy 04 (Sustainable Development), which states that in preparing new development proposals, developers should seek to demonstrate the following sustainable development principles, which the planning authority will also use in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission: a) Maximise the opportunity for local community benefit, including the creation of district (renewable) heat networks, where viable; b) Make efficient use of vacant and/or derelict land including
Page 254
Page | 8 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant appropriate buildings; c) Support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; d) Maximise the opportunities for sustainable forms of design including minimising waste, reducing our carbon footprint, increasing energy efficiency, solar panels, ground, water and air source heat pumps and other forms of renewable energy generation; e) Avoid the use of locally important good quality agricultural land; f) Utilise public transport corridors and active travel networks; g) Avoid the loss of important recreational and amenity open space; h) Conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; i) Respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; j) Avoid places with significant risk of flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability; and k) Avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), which states that to achieve good quality places proposals should endeavour to comply with all of the following placemaking criteria: • The proposed use should be compatible with surrounding land uses. • The proposal should, where practicable, be resource efficient by utilising existing infrastructure and facilities. • The design should respect site topography and any surrounding important landmarks or views. • The design should create and improve connectivity within, and where practical, beyond the site. • Green and blue infrastructure should be an integral part of the design process from the outset. • The design should develop the area’s sense of identity by understanding and embracing the existing distinctive characteristics, with the design respecting and complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes. • Where the site contains existing buildings, structures and/or natural features that contribute to the character and identity of the wider area, these should be retained and sensitively integrated into the design unless it has been clearly demonstrated to the planning authority that it is not practicable. • The siting and design should respond to the natural environment in a sustainable manner.
Page 255
Page | 9 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant • The proposal should consider the design of active frontages, and create welcoming, inclusive places with a coherent structure of streets, spaces and buildings which are easy to move around, prioritising the needs of pedestrians and cyclists above motor vehicles. • The access to and orientation of buildings should reinforce the street or open space to create safe and pleasant places. • The design should be sustainable in terms of materials and construction and should consider future adaptability, and climate change mitigation measures. Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), which states that each of the following will apply when assessing any proposal for development, including those for outbuildings and extensions: • The development should integrate into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment. Particularly careful attention should be given to hilltop, skyline or ridge locations, where development will only be acceptable if such a location cannot be avoided and any significant adverse landscape and visual effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of community wide importance arising from the development proposal, and have been sufficiently mitigated through an environmental impact assessment or landscape and visual impact assessment. • Development on a sloping site should be designed sensitively taking account of the topography in order to prevent significant excavation or under-building. • The siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density. • All new residential developments are required to consider provision for Growing Spaces – See Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure. • Any development should be carefully sited to avoid overshadowing or overlooking of itself or other properties. • The development should be positioned within the landscape to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements and minimise adverse environmental effects – this need must be balanced with the restrictions and opportunities the topography places on the siting. • The development should be sited within easy access of existing infrastructure and services • Any ancillary development such as parking and service areas, should be sensitively designed and sited. • A co-ordinated approach is required to development in that it must not compromise the effective development of adjacent land or the
Page 256
Page | 10 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant comprehensive development and regeneration of a wider area as provided for in a masterplan, strategy or development brief approved by the Council. 2. Grounds for Review: 2.1 The Scottish Government have stated that planning should take a positive approach to enabling high-quality development and making efficient use of land to deliver long-term benefits for the public while protecting and enhancing natural and cultural resources. With respect to the submitted application for review, having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan the following is the only planning issue that will require to be assessed by the Members of the Local Review Body. The Principle of the Development 2.2 Having regard to the single reason for refusal of the review application, whilst a significant number of Development Plan polices have been referred to, the key issue appears to be one of potential landscape impact. The Planning Officer states that in his opinion, by reason of its scale, form, layout and location, the proposal would introduce an urban character/form of development into a countryside setting, and that this would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. 2.3 This assessment is not agreed with for the following reasons. 2.4 The review application is only for planning permission in principle. The Council can exercise full control over all matters of siting, access, design, external appearance and landscaping at the ‘Matters Specified in Conditions’ stage. Whilst an indicative site plan was submitted to accompany the review application, this simply showed how four house plots, and access and drainage arrangements, could in principle be accommodated within the application site boundary. 2.5 The prevailing pattern of development on the Isle of Islay, outwith the defined settlements, is one of dispersed groups of 2, 3, 4 or more dwellings, in the main sited parallel to the public road. This has been acknowledged by Officers for many years. In the Report of Handing with respect to another almost identical planning application for planning permission in principle for the erection of four dwellings on land South-East of Neriby Cottage, Bridgend (LPA reference 22/00462/PPP) the Planning Officer (Mr Wilson) stated: “The proposal is for four detached houses within the site accessed
Page 257
Page | 11 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant by two new separate accesses. A new septic tank (or treatment plant) will also be provided. No details of siting or design have been supplied. Similarly, policies LDP 10, SG LDP SERV 1, SERV 2 and SERV 5(b) regarding water, drainage and waste management on site require further detail. It is expected that modest single storey style cottage dwellinghouses would be proposed with retention of roadside vegetation and new plantings to the rear. It is also inappropriate (sic) to create a row of houses rather than four standalone developments. The latter is deemed not be a ribbon development as defined in the LDP as it is fewer than six houses, with no potential for easterly expansion. It is expected that the design will have all houses addressing the main road and be a single house deep within the plot. The application is within a locality where development is relatively sparse and predominantly relates to isolated farms and individual and small linear groupings of modest roadside cottages. Whilst a grouping of four dwellings would be a significant presence in its self within this context it is noted that there is a similar grouping of four semi-detached dwellings to the SE at Mulindry. The details currently submitted show development set approximately 17m back within the site with the intention being to create a regular building line.” 2.6 The same assessment should be able to be made in respect of the review application, i.e. that the development of four roadside dwellings would not have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape, and furthermore would be entirely in keeping with the prevailing pattern of development on the island. Material Considerations 2.7 In 2019 the Council Commissioned the Islay Strategic Housing Overview. A report was prepared by Community Housing Scotland (https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/migrated_files/islay_strategic_housing_over view_-_cht_-_september_2019.pdf). This noted in particular that central and south Islay had demonstrated the highest demand in terms of locations for new housing, that second homes represented approximately 22% of the housing stock (Islay, Jura and Colonsay), and that there was a strong demand evidenced from businesses who require more housing in order to attract and retain a skilled workforce, the lack of which was restricting their growth and expansion. The Housing Emergency 2.8 After careful consideration of a range of issues, including the rise in homelessness, and a lack of housing choice for key workers, it was
Page 258
Page | 12 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant considered necessary in June 2023 for the Council to acknowledge a “Housing Emergency”. The report that led to this decision notes that a lack of accommodation stifles employment and that the majority of employers surveyed on Islay have experienced difficulties recruiting staff due to lack of housing. 2.9 Whilst the Planning Officer (Mr Gillespie) accepts in his Report of Handling that there are a number of benefits associated with the proposed development, including the contribution it would make to existing communities and local housing outcomes, particularly in the context of the Council declaring a ‘Housing Emergency’, he nevertheless concludes that these factors would (in his opinion) not outweigh the conflict the proposed development would have with the provisions of the Development Plan when taken as a whole. 3. Conclusions: 3.1 It is not accepted that the proposed development would introduce an ‘urban’ character/form of development into a countryside setting, or that there would be a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. The prevailing pattern of development on the Isle of Islay, outwith the defined settlements, is already one of dispersed groups of 2, 3, 4 or more dwellings sited parallel to the public road. All of the details of siting, design and external appearance of the four new dwellings can be adequately controlled through the required detailed application submissions. 3.2 The Council have recently declared a ‘Housing Emergency’, and on Islay in particular it had been evidenced that the lack of accommodation on the island is stifling employment, and thus economic growth, and that the majority of employers surveyed have experienced difficulties recruiting staff due to a lack of housing. 3.3 With respect to Policy 16 of the National Planning Framework, as was noted by Mr Wilson, this policy would be complied with subject to an agreed build out timescale, which can be secured by a planning condition. 3.4 Given the acknowledged demand for new dwellings on Islay there were however potential purchasers for all four of the plots applied for. All of these, so it is understood, were people who live and work on the island. In the light of this, as has been accepted elsewhere in Argyll and Bute, the applicants would also have no objection to the imposition of the following occupancy restriction:
Page 259
Page | 13 Prepared by Michael Hyde MRTPI Planning Consultant “Primary Residence: The dwelling houses that are the subject of this permission must only be occupied as a primary residence (i.e. the dwelling must be the main residence of the occupier and the dwelling where the occupier usually lives).” 3.5 This restriction would prevent any of the proposed new dwellings being occupied as second or holiday homes. 3.6 In conclusion it is therefore considered that any potential landscape impact, which would not in any event be significant, should easily be able to outweighed by the acute need for new housing for local people who live and work on Islay.
Page 260
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: 22/00709/PREAPP 18 May 2022 Rosemary Wood Coultorsay Farm Bruichladdich Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA49 7UN Dear Sir/ Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY PROPOSAL: Sell 4 plots for developments. SITE ADDRESS: Coultorsay Farm Bruichladdich Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute Thank you for your enquiry regarding the above proposal, which was received on 4th April 2022, This report has been prepared in the office using case cross referencing, remote sensing and map views both commercial and council maintained, and records of a site visit on 11.05.2022. Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) – The unchallenged policies and proposals within pLDP2 may be afforded significant material weighting in the determination of planning applications at this time as the settled and unopposed view of the Council. The provisions of pLDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: • Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes • Policy 36 – New Private Accesses • Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private • Road • Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads • Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access • Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision • Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation This proposal identifies two approximately 0.5ha rectangular sites either side of the Bruichladdich warehouses access road and around 135m and 375m south of the boundary of the Minor Settlement. Both sites address the A847 and may be accessed from the warehouse road rather than the main road. The northerly site lies mainly in a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA). The southerly in the countryside and additionally partly in a Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Protection Area (SPA) associated with the Rinns of Islay. These designations are defined in the Local Development Plan (adopted 2015)(LDP). LDP 2 is likely to remove the ROA classification in favour of simply settlement and countryside designations. It is understood the preferred site would be designed to contain four houses.
Page 261
A map outlining these designations is attached to the end of this report. Policy LDP DM1 encourages sustainable development on appropriate sites within the ROA, however the areas designated as the Countryside Zone would only be encouraged on sites which would be a change of use of an existing building or the following definitions: • Redevelopment – a development of new buildings involving significant demolitions; or the extension of a building involving more than a doubling of the cubic volume of the building but not exceeding three times the cubic volume (less than a doubling being treated as a building extension and more than trebling as a new build). • Infill – new development positioned largely between other substantial buildings and this new development being of a scale subordinate to the combined scale of the buildings adjacent to the development site. • Rounding off – new development positioned largely between substantial building(s) on one side and a substantial ground or natural feature on the other side and arranged such that the local pattern of development terminates at that point. The proposed southerly site fails to meet any of those criteria and an exceptional case for housing would be required to be made if this was the proposer’s preferred site. Additionally, building on this plot would create infill opportunities for the subsequent development of the northerly site which would be contrary to the intention of the spatial plan and would extend the settlement contrary to the plan. The southerly site may also encroach the SSSI and SPA and therefore would require natural heritage reports regarding species and habitats. The map may guide you to alter the red line boundaries to avoid countryside and Natura designations requiring to be assessed. Any development would be a change of use of the land what is not deemed to be high quality agricultural land. The change of use would be to Class 9 Houses. This is a designation of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes (Scotland) Order 1997. Any chosen site should be sufficient for modest buildings, parking infrastructure, foul water treatment and amenity space. In exceptional cases, up to and including large scale may be supported in the coutryside if it accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE) which is likely to be absent from LDP 2 but is still relevant at present. The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. Proposals in the countryside will be assessed on their individual merits and impacts. In this respect any application would benefit from a detailed design statement including landscape visualisations. Similarly the onus is on the applicants and their agents to supply the visualisations to aid council officers where an ACE is required. In this case the more northerly site is likely to be the most suitable, notwithstanding the councils hesitation regarding creating an artificial infill site beside Bruichladdich. It is recommended that the proposals for LDP 2 are reviewed. These are available on the councils planning web site. As we move towards LDP 2 (possibly October) we will be able to treat each application with the assistance not only of site visits but Landscape Visual Impact Assessment documentation which we expect to accompany any application. In this respect we would require to see how the house sits near other buildings and any substantial natural feature. Registered croft land which does not
Page 262
have an occupying house may considered with regard to a competent and comprehensive medium term croft management plan. Policy requires any development to respect the character of an area and to conserve and enhance the natural and built environments and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity and natural resources; hence the emphasis on *sustainable development. If the applicant is not making a formal application, permissions in principle do not require the detail of the building and/or its position within the plot, however, conditions are attached to any approval outlining the expectations in this regard. These conditions must be consistent with any subsequent formal application and may require to be discharged in advance of any express application for permission. A design and access statement should be attached to any application clearly showing the site selection criteria and the reasons for sites in the settlements being ruled out. This should also provide detailed modelling of the development within the landscape and reference the council’s own guidance and housing reports regarding the island. Any new access and road will require consultation with the council’s Roads department and may be worth while contacting in advance. Council policy is generally to refuse intensification of use from an unadoptable road. Any proposed work will require to comply with minimum building standards and building warrants may also be required before the work starts. You can verify this with your local authority building standards department. A construction and movement management plan should be considered regarding access, and maintenance around infrastructure and with regard to surrounding properties and built environment and be attached to any application. We are happy to answer any questions arising from (or related to) this report. Please note that this preliminary assessment is based on current information. In the event of a formal planning application being submitted, the Council must take into account views of consultees and representations from the public as appropriate. Any subsequent assessment must reflect this and may therefore differ from the initial assessment. Finally, the above is the view of Development Management and may not necessarily be that of the Planning Authority. Should you decide to make an application for planning permission, please be aware that the Council actively promotes online submission of applications through the Government’s ePlanning Portal at www.eplanning.scotland.gov.uk . You can also get more advice and guidance on our own website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. Definition: * Sustainable: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” Brandtland. The principle is applied in the plan by way of the development management zones, which are largely founded on general development capacities. Consultations on any formal proposal may include (though not exclusive to): • Building Standards • Environmental Health • Roads and Amenity • Scottish Water • SEPA • Nature Scotland • WoSAS
Page 263
The LDP policies covering any proposal may include (though not exclusive to): 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 5 - Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy 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 SG LDP HOU 1 - General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision SG LDP ENV 1 - Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity SG LDP ENV 2 = Development Impact on European Sites SG LDP ENV 4 = Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves SG LDP ENV 14 - Landscape SG LDP Sustainable - Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP ACE 1 - Area Capacity Evaluation SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 - Vehicle Parking Provision https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/ldp Spatial policy map
Page 264
Green – Rural Opportunity Area (current but under review for LDP 2 Cross hatch – Countryside, SSSI, SPA Buff – Countryside zone If you wish to discuss any aspect of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfully Derek Wilson Planning Officer
Page 265
1 Michael Hyde Subject: FW: Land at Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay [OFFICIAL] From: Wilson, Derek <Derek.Wilson@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 7:13 AM To: Michael Hyde <mh@mhplanning.co.uk> Subject: RE: Land at Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Morning, Apologies for the delay. When considering NPF4 regarding ROH sites, we try to establish a principle which does not mean every ROH site is suitable. Principle Of relevance, NPF4 Policy 9 sets out that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. NPF7 Policy 17c) sets out that new homes in remote rural areas will be supported where it supports and sustains existing fragile communities, supports identified local housing outcomes and is suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact NPF4 Policy 16f) sets out that new homes on land not allocated for housing in the LDP will only be supported in limited specified circumstances, which of relevance includes where there is an agreed timescale for build out; where the proposal is consistent with the plan spatial strategy and policies such as local living, and where the proposal is consistent with policy on rural homes. The concept of Local Living is further detailed in NPF4 Policy 15. The development is located within a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA) as defined by the LDP, wherein Policy DM1 envisages small scale development on appropriate sites, including the open countryside. As such, subject to an agreed build out timescale secured by planning condition, the proposal would meet the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16f). It is considered that the small scale of the proposed development and its rural location would reasonably comply with policies 2a), 15 and 17c) of NPF4 given the existing dispersed geographical scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home and support the community. This is underpinned by the broad settlement strategy policy contained within Policy LDP DM 1, LDP 5, LDP 8, LDP 10 and LDP 11 of the Local Development Plan. Drawing the above together, the principle of residential development at the site is considered acceptable in principle, subject to acceptability of the detailed matters set out below. This is now a standard housing template for reports but may vary with the specifics of the proposals. Regards, Derek Wilson From: Michael Hyde <mh@mhplanning.co.uk> Sent: 04 April 2023 09:49 To: Wilson, Derek <Derek.Wilson@argyll-bute.gov.uk>
Page 266
2 Cc: Bowker, Bryn <Bryn.Bowker@argyll-bute.gov.uk>; ldp <ldp@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Land at Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay Hello Derek Back in May last year you responded to a pre-application enquiry in respect of the development of potentially 4 house plots on land at Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich (copy of response attached). In respect of the ‘northern site’, which is mainly in a ROA at the moment, you said: “In this case the more northerly site is likely to be the most suitable, notwithstanding the councils hesitation regarding creating an artificial infill site beside Bruichladdich. It is recommended that the proposals for LDP 2 are reviewed. These are available on the Council’s planning web site. As we move towards LDP 2 (possibly October) we will be able to treat each application with the assistance not only of site visits but Landscape Visual Impact Assessment documentation which we expect to accompany any application. In this respect we would require to see how the house sits near other buildings and any substantial natural feature. Registered croft land which does not have an occupying house may considered with regard to a competent and comprehensive medium term croft management plan”. Clearly in policy terms things have now changed fundamentally! The new NPF4 policy on rural homes (Policy 17) does not seem to be as accommodating as the proposed Policy 02 in the (hopefully) soon to be adopted Local Development Plan 2. Policy 17 says that: (a) development proposals for new homes in rural areas will be supported where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and the development: i. Is on a site allocated for housing within the LDP; ii. Reuses brownfield land where a return to a natural state has not or will not happen without intervention; iii. Reuses a redundant or unused building; iv. Is an appropriate use of a historic environment asset or is appropriate enabling development to secure the future of historic environment assets; v. Is demonstrated to be necessary to support the sustainable management of a viable rural business or croft, and there is an essential need for a worker (including those taking majority control of a farm business) to live permanently at or near their place of work; vi. Is for a single home for the retirement succession of a viable farm holding; vii. Is for the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; the scale of which is in keeping with the character and infrastructure provision in the area; or viii. Reinstates a former dwelling house or is a one-for-one replacement of an existing permanent house. None of (i) to (viii) would appear to apply? Policy 17 however has other elements as follows: b) Development proposals for new homes in rural areas will consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs (including affordable housing), economic considerations and the transport needs of the development as appropriate for the rural location. c) Development proposals for new homes in remote rural areas will be supported where the proposal: i. Supports and sustains existing fragile communities; ii. Supports identified local housing outcomes; and iii. Is suitable in terms of location, access, and environmental impact.
Page 267
3 Would either of (b) or (c) add support for a proposal? I’m really struggling (as I’m sure you are) to work out how to approach applications for new houses in the countryside given the interplay between the NPF4 and the LDP. What do you think? I’ve copied in the Policy Team in case they might be able to help. Regards Mike Michael Hyde MRTPI MH Planning Associates www.mhplanning.co.uk m: 07816 907203 New Office Address: 63 West Princes Street, Helensburgh, G84 8BN 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 268
1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE REFERENCE NUMBER: 23/01028/PPP Mr and Mrs Rosemary and Neil Wood MH Planning Associates 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 8BN I refer to your application dated 25th May 2023 for planning permission in principle under the above mentioned Act and Regulations in respect of the following development: Site for the erection of 4 dwellinghouses at Land At Coultorsay Farm Bruichladdich Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute Argyll and Bute Council in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act and Regulations hereby refuse planning permission in principle for the above development for the reason(s) contained in the attached appendix. Dated: 15 February 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 269
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 23/01028/PPP 1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form, layout and location, would introduce an urban character/form of development into this countryside setting which would have an adverse visual impact which would, as a result, have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP HOU (A) (B), LDP ACE 1, SG LDP Sustainable, SG LDP ENV 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, NPF4 policies 4a, 9b, 14, 16f) 17c) iii, and emerging LDP2 policies 02, 04, 05, and 08.
Page 270
NOTES TO APPLICANT (1) RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 23/01028/PPP 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) within three months from the date of this notice. A Notice of Review request must be submitted on an official form which can be obtained by contacting The Local Review Body, Committee Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT or by email to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, and it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the landowner’s interest in the land, in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).
Page 271
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application: 23/01028/PPP A. Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. Yes/No (delete as appropriate) if yes, list amendments No B. Is the proposal a departure from the Development Plan: No If yes, state level of departure: C. Summary justification statement for refusal of planning permission in principle The proposed development, by reason of its scale, form, layout and location, would introduce an urban character/form of development into this countryside setting which would have an adverse visual impact which would, as a result, have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policies LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP HOU (A) (B), LDP ACE 1, SG LDP Sustainable, SG LDP ENV 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, NPF4 policies 4a, 9b, 14, 16f) 17c) iii, and emerging LDP2 policies 02, 04, 05, and 08.
Page 272
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision Site visit made on 16 November 2020 by Robert Parker BSc (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 December 2020 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/M1710/W/20/3256965 17 Lovage Way, Horndean, Waterlooville PO8 0JG • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr and Mrs K Sweeney for a full award of costs against East Hampshire District Council. • The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for change of use of a small section of amenity land to the rear to residential use and enclose it with timber fencing, with concrete posts to match the existing garden fencing. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. Reasons 2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process. Behaviours and actions prior to the appeal can be taken into account in the Inspector’s consideration of whether or not costs should be awarded. 3. The National Planning Policy Framework emphasises the importance of good quality pre-application discussion. Early engagement has significant potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system for all parties. The appellants followed this advice and sought an opinion from the local planning authority prior to making a planning application. The Council’s response contained caveats in relation to the choice of boundary treatments, but a reasonable person reading the letter would conclude that the principle was acceptable. The fact that the author of the letter was a principal officer of the Council gave added confidence regarding the reliability of the advice. 4. Pre-application advice is provided informally and on a without prejudice basis. There may be circumstances where representations received during the course of a planning application justify making a departure from earlier advice. However, none of the responses in this case raise any matter that could not have been foreseen at the pre-application stage. The issues are clear and straightforward. Had the pre-application advice been negative then the appellants may not have proceeded with a planning application and they would have avoided the costs of an appeal. Their application was submitted in good faith.
Page 273
Costs Decision APP/M1710/W/20/3256965 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 5. The officer report accepted that existing vegetation could be removed and that there was a fallback of erecting a 1 m high fence without needing permission. However, the proposal for taller fencing was deemed to be more harmful. Whilst I do not agree, this was a judgement which the Council was entitled to make. The authority has taken account of the relevant material considerations. 6. Where the Council has behaved unreasonably is in its lack of consistency with pre-application advice. There is a fair expectation that such advice should be reliable and that potential applicants should not be given false hope. After encouraging the appellants to submit an application the Council has backtracked to a position whereby it considers the principle of the change of use is unacceptable, notwithstanding that removal of vegetation has already taken place. There is no convincing explanation for this change in stance. 7. If the concern had related solely to the design of boundary treatment then this should have been flagged up before the application was determined. Better still, the Council’s preference should have been set out in its pre-application letter. To make the appellants guess, when there are only a finite number of options for height and material, is patently unreasonable. 8. To conclude, had the appellants been actively dissuaded from making the application in the first place, as opposed to being encouraged to proceed, they would not have incurred the costs of going to appeal. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process has been demonstrated and a full award of costs is justified. Costs Order 9. In the exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that East Hampshire District Council shall pay to Mr and Mrs K Sweeney, the costs of appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision such costs to be assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed. 10. The applicants are now invited to submit to East Hampshire District Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. Robert Parker INSPECTOR
Page 274
8m 8m 7m 16m 17m Port Bahn Stonayburn Drain 50m 30m Drain Curlew Drain FarmCoultorsay Cottage Drain War 20m Cnoc Allanta Cnoc a' Chuil Drain Meml Drain Port Flora Sinks Tel Ex 70m Sand A3 Drawing Number: Project: Drawing Title: Issue Status: Revision: Date: Scale: Drawn By: DescriptionDate Revision Description Rev By THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8BN 01436 674 777 07816 907 203 www.mhplanning.co.uk Client: MH Planning Associates Neil and Rosemary Wood Formation of Development Plots, at: Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Ise of Islay Location Plan 2022_0065-00 - April 2023 1:2500 @ A3 KM Planning red line indicates extent of application site n o r t hl o c a t i o n p l a n 0m 100m 200m20m 40m PS Scale Bar for 1:2500
Page 275
n o r t h A3 Drawing Number: Project: Drawing Title: Issue Status: Revision: Date: Scale: Drawn By: DescriptionDate Revision Description Rev By THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8BN 01436 674 777 07816 907 203 www.mhplanning.co.uk Client: MH Planning Associates Neil and Rosemary Wood Formation of Development Plots, at: Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Ise of Islay Supplementary Location Plan 2022_0065-01 - April 2023 1:25,000 @ A3 KM Planning s u p p l e m e n t a r y l o c a t i o n p l a n scale 1:25,000 @ A3 0m 1000m 2000m200m 400m PS Scale Bar for 1:25,000 Application Site
Page 276
Coultorsay Farm Drain House Coultorsay A 847 FB Drain Coultorsay Farm PROPOSED HOUSE NO.2 PROPOSED HOUSE NO.3 PROPOSED HOUSE NO.4 PROPOSED HOUSE NO.1 SEPTIC TANK PARTIAL SOAKAWAY BT ACCESS TRACK ACCESS TRACK TURNING FIELD ACCESS PLOT 1 = 2013m² PLOT 2 = 1527m² PLOT 3 = 1540m² PLOT 4 = 1712m² n o r t hs i t e p l a n Scale 1:500 @ A1 Drawing Number: Project: Drawing Title: Issue Status: Revision: Date: Scale: Drawn By: DescriptionDate Revision Description Rev By THIS DRAWING IS COPYRIGHT DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING 63 West Princes Street Helensburgh G84 8BN 01436 674 777 07816 907 203 www.mhplanning.co.uk A1 Client: MH Planning Associates Neil and Rosemary Wood Formation of Development Plots, at: Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Ise of Islay Site Plan 2022_0065-02 - April 2023 1:500 @ A1 KM Planning 0m 10m PS Scale Bar for 1:500 20m 30m 50m40m APPLICATION SITE AREA = 0.89ha