Agenda reports pack
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
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 14 May 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 21 MAY 2024 at 2:00 PM, 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 AT COULTORSAY FARM, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY (REF: 24/0006/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 38) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 39 - 62) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 63 - 72) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
!"#$ $!"" % &'()*& +&, * +
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
* *
Page 10
Page 11
'
Page 12
- *
Page 13
& , - - ./0/% %1% %/% !!$$##$2)!! - ' - - - & 3 /* 3 - +
Page 14
Page 15
& ' - -
Page 16
* &
Page 17
4 5 6 7 *- - 3 8
Page 18
Page 19
9. -& /* :
Page 20
/ /*7 * 5 1 / 5
Page 21
/ / 5
Page 22
/*
Page 23
No embedded text on this page.
Page 24
/* 5 6;8 5 %< /*
Page 25
No embedded text on this page.
Page 26
2 * /* 39 5 1< /* 5
Page 27
5 %
Page 28
No embedded text on this page.
Page 29
5 0
Page 30
+
Page 31
9 4 5 0
Page 32
+
Page 33
. 9 = =
Page 34
> ; $ !? $ @!?2! A # / ;
Page 35
=* ( & &, Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 36
Page 37
:
Page 38
/ /*7 * 5 .
Page 39
/ 1 / 5
Page 40
/*
Page 41
No embedded text on this page.
Page 42
/ 5 6;8 5 9.
Page 43
No embedded text on this page.
Page 44
2 /* 5 39 5 %< /* 5 * /*
Page 45
5 1< /* %
Page 46
No embedded text on this page.
Page 47
5 1
Page 48
No embedded text on this page.
Page 49
- 6
Page 50
Page 51
3 + *8
Page 52
No embedded text on this page.
Page 53
Page 54
No embedded text on this page.
Page 55
2
Page 56
No embedded text on this page.
Page 57
Page 58
No embedded text on this page.
Page 59
#
Page 60
No embedded text on this page.
Page 61
" 39 9;
Page 62
Page 63
-9
Page 64
* - / % .
Page 65
/
Page 66
Page 67
>
Page 68
Page 69
No embedded text on this page.
Page 70
1 #@ ?B/
Page 71
17
Page 72
No embedded text on this page.
Page 73
7 0 - 07
Page 74
;
Page 75
0 - 0 -
Page 76
(* & Page 4
Page 77
Page 78
+
Page 79
Page 80
- 3 + 3 &
Page 81
Page 82
* + - 7
Page 83
Page 84
3 - 5 6< "!! 8 > -
Page 85
No embedded text on this page.
Page 86
* 4 5 - 6
Page 87
Page 88
* <
Page 89
3 , 8& - & 1 & - + - -
Page 90
Page 91
& >
Page 92
+ 3 4 5 - / & A - 3
Page 93
Page 94
& /
Page 95
Page 96
3 *
Page 97
Page 98
63 - +
Page 99
Page 100
Page 101
< 8 C
Page 102
Page 103
-&
Page 104
: -7 3 , + 3 - D
Page 105
6 - ,
Page 106
8& :
Page 107
' * ,
Page 108
+ 3& 0- * +
Page 109
Page 110
Page 111
E; D 5 6< "!! 8 / , + -
Page 112
No embedded text on this page.
Page 113
-
Page 114
7
Page 115
- - 3
Page 116
), , & :
Page 117
3+ 3 3 3 *-
Page 118
Page 119
Page 120
6 < -
Page 121
-
Page 122
87
Page 123
3
Page 124
+ *
Page 125
*- *
Page 126
*- ' - < & =+
Page 127
3 3 *-
Page 128
-- : / 3
Page 129
4 5 0- 7
Page 130
< * < * 37 3 3 7 3 3
Page 131
3
Page 132
-- *- 3
Page 133
Page 134
Page 135
3
Page 136
Page 137
*
Page 138
Page 139
+ 3 5 6< "!! 8 ; - % - # 3 ;
Page 140
A
Page 141
- + 3 Page 5
Page 142
+
Page 143
-
Page 144
7
Page 145
+
Page 146
3 3 * 3 - + 3
Page 147
Page 148
- + 3& :
Page 149
5 6< "!! 8 +
Page 150
- & + * - + & >
Page 151
3 *
Page 152
4 5 >
Page 153
3
Page 154
Page 155
* 4 5 + 3
Page 156
3
Page 157
Page 158
Page 159
*
Page 160
Page 161
+ 3
Page 162
Page 163
+ 3 ' - - *
Page 164
*
Page 165
+ 3& 1 - * '
Page 166
* * -
Page 167
7 3 * F
Page 168
-
Page 169
9
Page 170
3 *G - + 3 & + 3 7 7 *
Page 171
+ 3 - + - +
Page 172
Page 173
* -
Page 174
7 3 -
Page 175
4 1 <7 3 * 7 7 & 5 : / 0 + + 3
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
7 * -
Page 181
*
Page 182
4 5 : / 0 * - *
Page 183
-
Page 184
3 * 4 5 : / - 3 , , + +
Page 185
Page 186
- - & 1 * - *
Page 187
Page 188
+
Page 189
& =+ +
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
No embedded text on this page.
Page 194
- 4& 5 : / =+ +
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
- * - 3 *G - : / + 34 5 0- 7 *- - 7 + +
Page 199
Page 200
No embedded text on this page.
Page 201
- : / /9
Page 202
Page 203
No embedded text on this page.
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
3
Page 208
'
Page 209
3 + 3
Page 210
* 4 5 =+ +
Page 211
Page 212
- ' + 3
Page 213
* 3 : /
Page 214
6 * -
Page 215
8 3 + 3 *
Page 216
Page 217
4 5 / : 7 -7 3 , + 3 & :
Page 218
' * ,
Page 219
+ 3& : + -
Page 220
No embedded text on this page.
Page 221
- + 3
Page 222
& 0 - * 3 - + 37 -
Page 223
+
Page 224
Page 225
3 + 3
Page 226
Page 227
- + 3& -
Page 228
7
Page 229
+
Page 230
3
Page 231
: / 6&&
Page 232
3 8 3 3 *G - + 3 5 / > + 3 - && 3 -
Page 233
- 7 + + -
Page 234
3 - + - -
Page 235
Page 236
7
Page 237
+ * +
Page 238
- *7 +
Page 239
Page 240
No embedded text on this page.
Page 241
6 - 8 - & A
Page 242
- + 37
Page 243
; 7 )# 2 9!!2 9 "9!292!2# 2#9!"92!2 Page 6
Page 244
09> 9 - - + 3
Page 245
Page 246
& / =
Page 247
29! 92!2# Page 7
Page 248
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 8
Page 249
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 9
Page 250
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 10
Page 251
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 11
Page 252
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 12
Page 253
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 13
Page 254
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 14
Page 255
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 15
Page 256
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 16
Page 257
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 17
Page 258
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 18
Page 259
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 19
Page 260
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 20
Page 261
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 21
Page 262
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 22
Page 263
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 23
Page 264
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 24
Page 265
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 25
Page 266
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 26
Page 267
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 27
Page 268
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 28
Page 269
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 29
Page 270
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 30
Page 271
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 31
Page 272
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 32
Page 273
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 33
Page 274
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 34
Page 275
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 35
Page 276
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 36
Page 277
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 37
Page 278
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 Page 38
Page 279
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR ERECTION OF 4NO. DWELLINGHOUSES AT LAND AT COULTORSAY FARM, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY, ARGYLL AND BUTE PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER 23/01028/PPP LOCAL REVIEW BOARD REFERENCE NUMBER 24/0006/LRB 27th March 2024 Page 39 Agenda Item 3b
Page 280
STATEMENT OF CASE The planning authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellants are Mr and Mrs Rosemary and Neil Wood (‘the appellants’). The planning application, reference number 23/01028/PPP, for the erection of 4No. dwellinghouses at Land at Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Isle of Islay, Argyll and Bute (“the appeal site”) was refused under delegated powers on the 15th February 2024. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application site is located in the countryside (formerly within part within a designated Rural Opportunity Area and part within a Countryside Zone) as designated in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024). The application site, which is cut out from a larger field, comprises an undeveloped area of rough grazing land which is devoid of any buildings. SITE HISTORY The planning history of the site and locality is detailed in Section D of the Report of Handling. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is the test for this application. STATEMENT OF CASE Argyll and Bute Council considers the determining issues in relation to the case are as follows:- - Whether the proposed scale, form, layout and location would have an adverse visual impact which would, as a result, have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. - Whether the proposed scale, form, layout and location would introduce an urban character/form of development into this countryside setting. The Report of Handling (attached) sets out the Council’s assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. Page 40
Page 281
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is considered that no new information has been raised in the appellants’ 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. As such it is considered that Members have all the information they need to determine the case. Given the above and that the proposal is small-scale, has no complex or challenging issues and has not been the subject of significant body of conflicting representation, then it is considered that a Hearing is not required. COMMENT ON APPELLANTS’ SUBMISSION Having regard to the detailed grounds for review set out in the appellant’s submission, the following points are noted: 1. At Section 1 ‘Background’ paragraph 1.1 of the appellant’s review submission, the appellants assume that there was a drafting error in the now superseded Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (adopted March 2015) because the Rural Opportunity Area designation within which the appeal site was located at the time the planning application was submitted (and assessed) did not extend to the full extent of the appeal site to the road. Officers can confirm that no drafting error exists in the particular circumstances of this case. As detailed within Section P of the main report of handling, the appeal site is located part within a designated Rural Opportunity Area (ROA) and part within a Countryside Zone (CZ) as designated in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 (LDP). A detailed assessment of the relevant planning policies pertaining to these two designations is subsequently set out within Section P of the main report of handling under the sub-section titled ‘Principle’. 2. At Section 1 paragraph 1.1 of the appellant’s review submission, the appellants refer to the Council’s supplementary guidance with respect to ROA’s and highlights the following: “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”. Officers agree with the appellant that the highlighted text provides for a presumption in favour of small-scale housing development within this zone. However, the highlighted text goes on to expressly qualify that the small-scale housing development must be ‘appropriate’ and that it must be ‘in tune with the landscape character and development Page 41
Page 282
pattern’. As detailed within Section P of the main report of handling, and primarily addressed under the sub-section titled ‘Character of the Landscape’ in this case, Officers consider that the scale, form and layout of the proposed development, when set in this particular location and context, 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, noticeable from the surrounding area and adjacent road. 3. At Section 1 paragraphs 1.6 – 1.11 of the appellant’s review submission, the appellants set out their own view in respect to the pre-application advice they received from the Council. At paragraph 1.11, the conclude that in their opinion ‘…there is a fair expectation that pre-application advice should be reliable and that potential applicants should not be given “false hope”. Officers note that the appellants correctly refer to the Council’s formal pre-application advise letter dated 18 May 2022 in which the planning officer set out his opinion/consideration of the proposal in principle for 4No. dwellinghouses both at the appeal site and at another potential site on the opposite side of the road. Of the two sites, the Officer clearly states that ‘…In this case the more northerly site is likely to be the most suitable’, that is, the appeal site is most suitable of the two sites identified by the appellants. However, whilst stating that of the two sites, the appeal site is the most suitable, the Officer goes on to qualify his opinion by referring to the ‘…councils hesitation regarding creating an artificial infill site beside Bruichladdich’. As such, the Officers sets out his concerns regarding the appeal site and no express support for the scheme was provided. Importantly, the Council’s pre-application advice dated 18 May letter contains the following statement, ‘Finally, the above is the view of Development Management and may not necessarily be that of the Planning Authority’. From this, it should be clear to the reader that the Officer is providing an informal opinion in respect to the information he/she has been provided at the time of the pre-application advice and neither does it constitute a detailed assessment of the planning merits of the proposal nor does it bind the Council to the same conclusion if/when the formal submission of the planning application has been made to the Council. Equally, there is an onus upon the appellant’s agent to make that clear to his clients/the appellants. It is also noted that the email from Mr Wilson (dated 12.04.24) provided by the appellant does not offer support for the proposal as the appellant states. This email includes a body of text that Mr Wilson explains to Mr Hyde was being used as a template in reports, which ‘may vary with the specifics of the proposals’. Page 42
Page 283
4. At Section 1 paragraph 1.10 of the appellant’s review submission, the appellants refer to a decision of the Planning Inspectorate in England under APP/M1710/W/20/3256965 in which the Inspector comments upon pre-application advice. Officers would comment that this decision and/or its content has no jurisdiction or planning weight in the Scottish Planning system. 5. At Section 2 ‘Grounds for Review’ paragraphs 2.4 – 2.6, the appellants set out their own opinion of the Principle of Development. Officers note at the outset that the appellants’ opinion does not make any reference to prevailing planning policy relevant to the particular circumstances of the appeal development. Officers would respectfully refer to the detailed planning policy assessment set out within Section P of the main report of handling. At paragraph 2.5 of the appellant’s review submission, Officers note that the appellants state that 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. Whilst that may or may not be the case in the wider Isle of Islay, it is not the prevailing pattern of development within the immediate proximity of the appeal site and against which the proposal would be read. The prevailing pattern of development at the appeal site is one of isolated dwellings. At paragraph 2.5 of the appellant’s review submission, the appellants refer to planning application 22/00462/PPP for planning permission in principle for the erection of four dwellings on land South-East of Neriby Cottage, Bridgend and state that it is ‘almost identical’ to the appeal proposal. Officers consider that not to be the case. Notwithstanding that each planning application must be considered on its own merits and in its own evidential context, the fundamental difference between that planning application and the appeal proposal is that in that case, the Officer noted the presence of a ‘similar grouping of four semi- detached dwellings to the SE at Mulindry’ and attached weight accordingly. In this case, there is no similar ‘grouping’ of 4No. dwellinghouses within close proximity of the appeal site. 6. At Section 2 under the sub-heading ‘The Housing Emergency’, the appellants paragraphs 2.8 – 2.9, the appellants refer to the Council declaring a ‘housing emergency’ in June 2023 because of the difficulties of employers attracting staff as a result of the lack of housing. At paragraph 2.9, the appellants state that whilst the Planning Officer referred to a number of benefits associated with the proposed development, he concluded that these factors would not outweigh the conflict the proposed development would have with the development plan when taken as a whole. Page 43
Page 284
- The Planning Officer assessed that the ‘housing emergency’ was a material consideration but that in the final planning balance, it did not outweigh the fundamental planning policy conflict with the Local Development Plan of the appeal proposal. Notwithstanding that there is a housing emergency, this should not outweigh proposals which are contrary to prevailing policy and which, in this case, 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. 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. Adoption of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (28.02.2024) It is highlighted that subsequent to planning permission being refused (on 02.02.24) that the Argyll and Bute Local Development 2 has been adopted on 28th February 2024. As of that date, the ‘Development Plan’ for Argyll and Bute (excluding the area covered by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority) is National Planning Framework 4 and LDP2 which require to be applied holistically with preference afforded to LDP2, as the most recent expression of policy, in the event of any conflict between the two policy documents. For the avoidance of doubt, it is also confirmed that the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and its associated Supplementary Guidance are now superseded and accordingly should not be afforded significant material weight in planning determinations. It is understood that the determination of these LRB proceedings will accordingly require to be made with regard to the updated ‘Development Plan’ position. The report of handling includes commentary that identifies the provisions of LDP2 which were relevant to the determination of this application. It is confirmed that the adoption of LDP2 does not give rise to any substantive change to the matters considered within the assessment previously undertaken by officers in respect of this particular application. Summary Commentary on Key Material Considerations: - Whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle in the countryside. The site is located outside Bruichladdich and within the countryside as defined in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 2024 (LDP2). Policy 02 ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’ of LDP 2 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: Page 44
Page 285
• an allocation of this plan, or • parts A, B or C as set out below, and • all other relevant policies of the LDP2’. The policy goes on to state: ‘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. Development proposals will also be required to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity (emphasis added). Where a major development is proposed, or for any development where there is preliminary evidence that there may be such adverse effects (and where a formal environmental impact assessment is not required), a landscape and visual impact assessment, natural heritage assessment, or built and/or cultural heritage assessment may be required. In circumstances where there is otherwise evidence of a risk to the environment (for example flood risk or environmental pollution) other assessments may be required. The need for any such assessments would be determined at the development management stage, generally through pre- planning application processes’. Part A is titled ‘Countryside Areas’ and wherein the appeal site lies. Part A states that ‘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’. In this case, Officers consider that the appeal proposal represents neither infill development, rounding off, nor is it a redevelopment opportunity of clusters or a previously developed site. In this regard, as the appeal proposal does receive support from Policy 02 as it does not comprise (infill/rounding off/redevelopment opportunities of clusters or previously developed sites) within the policy. Furthermore, the proposal would result in unacceptable adverse landscape and visual amenity effects. Page 45
Page 286
As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 02 of LDP 2 and Policy 9(b) of NPF4 such that it is not acceptable in principle in the countryside. - Whether the proposed location, scale, form and layout of the proposed development have sufficient regard to the context of their setting and the character of the landscape. Policy 04 ‘Sustainable Development’ of LDP 2 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 number of criteria are subsequently detailed one of which is that the appeal proposal would: (i) respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements. Policy 08 ‘Sustainable Siting’ of LDP 2 details a number of criteria that will apply when assessing any proposal for development. These include: • 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; and • The siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density. In this case, Officers consider that the character of the area is predominantly agricultural land interspersed with isolated dwellings. Notwithstanding that the appeal site is not sited on a hilltop, skyline or ridge location, its scale, form and layout would introduce an urban character/form of development which would not visually integrate into this prominent open landscape setting along this part of the road and which would, as a result, have a significant adverse effect on the overall character and setting of the landscape. Officers also consider that it would establish an undesirable precedent which, if repeated in a similar locational context, would have a significant detrimental impact on the integrity of the countryside. Policy 10 ‘Design: All Development’ details a number of criteria that will apply when assessing any proposal for development. This includes that: • Development must demonstrate an understanding of and appropriate response to the proposed development site and wider context including consideration of character and, where applicable, urban grain..’ Page 46
Page 287
For the reasons given above, it is considered the proposed development would not be an appropriate response to the character of the wider site context. The proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 14, and Policies 04, 08 and 10 of LDP 2. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the request for a review be dismissed. Appended documents: Report of Handling Page 47
Page 288
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: 23/01028/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr and Mrs Rosemary and Neil Wood Proposal: Site for the erection of 4 dwellinghouses Site Address: Land At Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich, Isle Of Islay, 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 In Principle Planning Permission • Erection of 4 dwellinghouses • Formation of Access • Installation of Septic Tank and Soakaway (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to services (B) RECOMMENDATION: For the reasons set out below, planning permission in principle should be refused for the proposed development (C) CONSULTATIONS: ABC Roads – No objection subject to conditions – 19.06.2023 Scottish Water – No objection - 02.06.2023 West if Scotland Archaeology – No objection subject to conditions - 15.06.2023 (D) HISTORY: (LPA reference 22/00709/PREAPP) – Responded on 18.05.2022 – “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”. Page 48
Page 289
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 (E) PUBLICITY: Oban Times advertisement – published 18.06.2023, expired 29.06.2023 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: • N/A (ii) Summary of issues raised: • N/A (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) (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) Supporting Planning Statement – 25.05.2023 (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 Page 49
Page 290
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 (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 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste 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 Productive Places NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 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 ‘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 SG LDP ENV 2 – Impact on European Sites SG LDP ENV 4 – Impact on SSSIs and National Nature Reserves SG LDP ENV 11 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Landscape and Design SG LDP 14 – Landscape SG LDP ACE 1 – Area Capacity Evaluation General Housing Development SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision Sustainable Siting and Design Page 50
Page 291
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 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 Transport (Including Core Paths) SG LDP TRAN 4 – New & Existing, Public Roads & Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision (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 • Scottish Planning Policy • Consultation Reponses • Planning History 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 02 – Outwith 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 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Page 51
Page 292
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 High Quality Environment Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (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 4.10 Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (P)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes Page 52
Page 293
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 ☐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 application for planning permission in principle proposes the erection of 4 dwellinghouses on land at Land at Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich which is part within a designated Rural Opportunity Area and part within a Countryside Zone as designated in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 (LDP). The application site, which measures some 0.89 hectares in area and which comprises an undeveloped area of rough grazing land, extends in a south-west to north-east direction along this particular part of the A847. The application proposes the erection of 4No. detached dwellings which are positioned in a linear form within the application site. Each of the 4No. dwellings will front onto the A847. Dwelling/Plot 1 which is sited at the south-western extent of the application site measures some 2013m2, Dwelling Plot 2 measures some 1627m2, Dwelling Plot 3 measures some 1640m2 and Dwelling Plot 2 measures, which is positioned towards the north-eastern extent of the application site measures 1712m2. To the rear of each dwelling is positioned a parking area which is designed to accommodate two cars. Access to the development is gained via a single entrance directly from the A847. This entrance leads onto a laneway which provides access to the rear of each of the four dwellings and their respective parking areas and which culminates towards the north-eastern extent of the application site in a turning area. The laneway incorporates approximately 2No. passing areas in its design. Positioned along the north-eastern boundary of the site and within proximity to the aforementioned turning area is a septic tank/partial soakaway to serve the proposed development. Page 53
Page 294
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 To the north of the application site lies Coultorsay House/Coultorsay Farm, to the north-east lies the laneway serving the aforementioned house/farm, to the east and south-east lies the A847, to the south lies a single storey detached building and 2No. telecommunication structures and to the west lies agricultural land. As this is an application in principle, details in respect of the design of each dwelling, the access, landscaping etc. are not provided. Principle In the first instance, Policy LDP STRAT 1 is relevant to the application proposal. As detailed above, the application site is an undeveloped area of rough grazing land. As it therefore avoids the use of locally important good quality agricultural land, it complies with Policy LDP STRAT 1 of the LDP. As also detailed above, the application site is located part within the Rural Opportunity Area and part within a Countryside Zone as designated in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. For this reason, Policy LDP DM 1 also provides the relevant policy context in this case. Herein criterion (D) relates to development within a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA) and criterion (E) relates to development within a Countryside Zone (CZ). Policy LDP DM1 states that encouragement shall be given to sustainable forms of development. In respect of development within an ROA, this includes small scale development on appropriate sites including the open countryside. As the proposed development is for 4No. dwellings, it would represent ‘small-scale’ development as defined by SG LDP HOU 1. However, whilst the proposed development would be partly within the ROA, for the reasons that follow (see Landscape Character section below), the site would not represent an ‘appropriate site’ in the ROA with reference to Policy LDP DM1 (D). Whilst the policy in respect of CZ essentially mirrors that of within ROA in that it also provides development up to small scale, it is qualified upon being on an appropriate infill, rounding off and redevelopment site. The application site, however, does not fall within any of these types of development sites. Criterion (E) goes on to state that in exceptional cases, development in the open countryside up to and including large scale may be supported on appropriate sites if this accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE) in accordance with Policy SG LDP ACE 1 of the LDP. In respect of this application, however, no ACE has been submitted with the application. Furthermore, whilst a supporting planning statement has been submitted, no exceptional case/reasons have been provided as to why the development is necessary in this location. For all these reasons, as the exception case has not been satisfied in the particular circumstances of this application, it is considered that the proposed development fails to comply with Policies LDP DM1, SG LDP HOU (A) and (B), SG LDP ACE 1 of the LDP, and as such NPF4 policies 9b), and 16f) ii). Character of the Landscape Policy SG LDP ENV 14 of the LDP provides the relevant policy context in addition to Policy LDP 3 of the LDP in the particular circumstances of this application in principle. Page 54
Page 295
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 Policy SG LDP ENV 14 states, inter alia, that outwith National Scenic Areas and Areas of Panoramic Quality, of which this application site is not within, the Council will resist development when its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape unless two exceptions are accepted. In this location, it is considered that the character of the landscape is predominantly agricultural land interspersed with isolated dwellings. This form of development I consider maintains the rural/countryside aspect of the area and maintains its landscape character and distinction from an urban setting. I consider however that the scale, form and layout of the proposed development, when set in this particular location and context, 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, noticeable from the surrounding area and adjacent road. As no social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance have been provided in support of the application and I consider that no mitigation measures have been incorporated into the development proposal to minimise the aforementioned adverse effect, a policy exception has not been made out in this case. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to Policies LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP Sustainable, SG LDP ENV 14 of the LDP, NPF4 policies 4a, 14 and 17c) iii. Access As detailed above, access would be taken directly from the A846. ABC Roads has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. It is therefore considered that the proposed development complies with Policies LP TRAN 4 and LP TRAN 6 of the LDP. All in all, and notwithstanding the conclusion in respect of the matter of access, for the reasons detailed above, I consider that the proposal is contrary Policies LDP DM1, LDP 3, LDP 9, LDP ACE 1, SG LDP Sustainable and SG LDP ENV 14 of the LDP, which are determining, and that as a result, I recommend that planning permission is refused. Other Matters The site is outwith but surrounded by the Rinns of Islay SSSI and SPA. However, based on the available evidence, it is not considered likely that the proposed development would have a significant effect (including cumulatively) on either designation. It is also considered that a suitably worded planning conditions could address the consultation comments raised by the Roads Authority and West of Scotland Archaeological Services. Matters Raised by Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (as modified by Examination) For the reasons set out above and insofar as they relate to the harm identified, the proposal would also be contrary to Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Page 55
Page 296
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting 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’. However these factors would not outweigh the conflict the proposed development would have with the development plan when taken as a whole. The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, 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. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Refused: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, 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. As such, planning permission should be refused for the proposed development. (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: Francis Gillespie Date: 15.01.2023 Reviewing Officer: Bryn Bowker Date: 14.02.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 56
Page 297
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 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 57
Page 298
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 NOTE TO APPLICANT (Copy Informative Notes to Uniform Decision Tab) • N/A. Page 58
Page 299
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 15.06.2023 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 (Complete Uniform Reception, Plans Tab) (B) The reason why planning permission in principle has been refused: 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 59
Page 300
From: roadsconsmaki To: MacInnes, Hazel; localreviewprocess Subject: RE: Notice of Review - Coultorsay, Bruiachladdich [OFFICIAL] [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Date: 22 March 2024 14:52:41 Attachments: Roads response 23.01028.PPP.pdf Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Hi Hazel, I have nothing further to add. I have attached a copy of my response, for ease of reference. Regards James James Ross Traffic & Development Officer MAKI Argyll & Bute Council Roads & Infrastructure Services 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RD Tel. 01546 604655 e mail. james.ross@argyll-bute.gov.uk From: MacInnes, Hazel <Hazel.MacInnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 18 March 2024 10:51 To: localreviewprocess <localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Notice of Review - Coultorsay, Bruiachladdich [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Good morning, Please find attached Notice of Review in respect of Coultorsay Farm, Bruiachladdich, Isle of Islay. As detailed in the attached AB3 form, you have 14 days to provide any representation you may wish to make (by 1 April 2024). Regards, Hazel Hazel Kelly MacInnes Committee Services Officer Legal and Regulatory Support Page 60
Page 301
Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 604269 hazel.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk www.argyll-bute.gov.uk --- 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. Page 61
Page 302
Development and Infrastructure - Roads and Amenity Services Application No. 23 01028 PPP OBSERVATIONS ON PLANNING APPLICATION Contact James Ross Tel. 01546-604655 Grid Reference 1255872 660360 Dated Received 30/05/2023 Return By Date 20/06/2023 Applicant Mr and Mrs Rosemary and Neil Wood Call By Date Proposed Development Site for erection of 4 dwellings District Islay Location Land At Coultorsay Farm, Bruichladdich Recommendation Type of consent Outline Permission No objection subject to conditions Drawing Refs. Comments 1. The applicant should ensure their plans show the required visibility splays within the site edge red. Conditions/Reasons for refusal/deferment 1. Connection of site access to public road, 136 x 2.40 x 1.05 metres. 2. Connection of site access to public road to be constructed as per the Council's standard detail drawing ref: SD 08/006 Rev a. Access width to be 5.50 metres wide, for a distance of 10.00 metres. 3. Roadside ditch to be culverted. 4. Headwalls to be provided at each end of the culvert under the proposed vehicular access. 5. Refuse collection point to be provided adjacent to the public road. 6. A turning head to be provided at the end of the proposed private access. 7. Details for the servicing of the proposed septic tank to be provided, for written approval by Roads & Infrastructure Services. 8. Parking and turning for each dwelling, as per The Local Plan. 9. Applicant to provide a scaled plan showing a positive surface drainage system to prevent the discharge of surface water onto the public road. For written approval by Roads & Infrastructure Services. 10. If the applicant wishes to remove the stone walls rather than reduce the height, there should be no fences walls or hedges within 2.00 metre of the public road or within 1.00 metre of a roadside ditch. SEE COMMENTS ABOVE Notes for Intimation to Applicant (i) Construction Consent (S21)* Not Required (ii) Road Bond (S17)* Not Required (iii) Road Opening Permit (S56)* Required (iv) No surface water discharge* Required *Relevant Section of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 Signed: J. Ross Date 19/06/2023 ID 6521 19 June 2023 Copies to : Planning Page 1 of 1 Page 62
Page 303
MH Planning Associates 63 West Princes Street, Helensburgh, G84 8BN Tel: 01436 674777 Mob: 07816 907203 Web: www.mhplanning.co.uk Email: info@mhplanning.co.uk 15 April 2024 Hazel Kelly MacInnes Committee Services Officer Legal and Regulatory Support Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead PA31 8RT Ref MHP: 2022_0065 Dear Hazel 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) I refer to your e-mail dated 2 April 2024 inviting comments regarding the representations received in connection with the above application for review. My response is as follows. The Pre-Application Advice Received The Planning Officer correctly notes under this heading that pre-application advice was sought from the Council on two separate occasions, and that responses were received on 18 May 2022 and again on 12 April 2024. The first pre-application submission was made by the applicant directly and proposed two alternative sites for a potential development of four new dwellings. The response received contained the following paragraph: “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). Page 63 Agenda Item 3c
Page 304
Page 2 of 5 LDP 2 is likely to remove the ROA classification in favour of simply settlement and countryside designations.” The response concluded by saying that “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”. The second pre-application was submitted by me on 4 April 2023. I specifically sought guidance regarding the updated planning policy context, given the adoption of the National Planning Framework on 13 February 2023, and also the advanced stage of the preparation of the Council’s Local Development Plan 2 (which was to remove the Rural Opportunity Area designation). The Planning Officer provided an indication as to how the Council would assess application for new dwellings in the countryside, and concluded by saying: “Drawing the above together, the principle of residential development at the site is considered acceptable in principle.” This response could not have been more unequivocal, and it certainly gave my clients the confidence to spend £5,622 on application and advertisement fees. Following a change of Planning Officer, the application was then refused based upon an issue of principle, i.e. perceived landscape impact. For the Council to made such a fundamental ‘U’ turn regarding the principle of the proposed development was extremely disappointing, and renders seeking pre-application advice rather pointless! With respect to the ‘costs decision’ submitted with the Grounds of Review the Planning Officer says, “Officers would comment that this decision and/or its content has no jurisdiction or planning weight in the Scottish Planning system”. This is not correct. The decision is very relevant when it comes to the weight that should be attached to pre-application advice and is thus equally applicable in Scotland, notwithstanding that fact that it is an English decision. Attached is a further costs decision that makes the very same point (Document 5). In paragraph 12 the Inspector states: “I find that this sudden change in position without any reasonable justification, other than a difference of professional opinion between two Council officers, amounts to unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the Council. Such behaviour provides a great deal of uncertainty to the developer, particularly in this instance as the application was submitted with a justifiable expectation that it would be approved. Page 64
Page 305
Page 3 of 5 Planning Policy Context The Development Plan relevant to the review application now comprises the National Planning Framework (2023) and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024). 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. With respect to the NPF, Policy 9 indicates 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 16 of the NPF seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs, and Part (c) of this policy supports development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, including ‘self-provided homes’. Having regards to Part (f) of Policy 16 an agreed timescale for build-out can be secured via the imposition of a an appropriately worded planning condition. Whilst the development proposed is not on land actively allocated for housing in the LDP, it would however wholly accord with the adopted settlement strategy and the principles of ‘local living’ and ’20 minute neighbourhoods’, as set out in Policy 15 of the NPF. This policy seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the ‘Place Principle’ and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. In terms of the Council’s adopted settlement strategy, the site of the proposed dwellinghouse is in an area identified as being outwith a settlement area where Policy 02 of the LDP promotes a more flexible approach to development, with Part A of the policy providing a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies. In this instance, it is considered that the relatively small scale of the proposed development, and its rural location, would comply with Policy 15 of the NPF given the existing dispersed geographical scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and its close proximity to Bruichladdich, which is just 1km from the application site. In addition to the above, Policy 17 of the NPF seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Part (a) of this policy supports development proposals for new Page 65
Page 306
Page 4 of 5 homes in rural areas where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area, and Part (b) requires proposals for new homes in rural areas to consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs. It has already been noted above that the proposed development is consistent with the Council’s adopted strategic housing policies. Part (c) then offers support for new homes in rural areas where such proposals (i) support and sustain existing fragile communities, (ii) support identified local housing outcomes and (iii) are suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact. Turning now to the very recently adopted LDP, the application site is within a Countryside Area. Policy 02 of the LDP states that 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. All developments will require a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment demonstrating to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, that the proposal can be successfully integrated into its landscape setting unless they are infill, rounding off, redevelopment opportunities of clusters or previously developed sites. Pulling all of the above together, the submitted application, if approved, would provide for four new houses which would accord with the Council’s key planning policy aim of supporting and sustaining fragile rural communities by contributing to actions to reverse falling populations and support the local economy. The application proposal therefore fulfils the broad aims of Policy 17 of the NPF, and does not conflict with any of the relevant policies of the LDP. In addition to the above, as Councillors know, a Housing Emergency has recently been declared, and on Islay in particular it has 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. As was noted in the Grounds for Review, there were potential purchasers for all four of the plots applied for. All of these purchasers, so it is understood, were people who live and work on the island. In the light of this, as has previously been advised, the applicants would have no objection to the following occupancy condition being imposed: “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).” Such a condition would prevent any of the proposed new dwellings being occupied as second or holiday homes. Page 66
Page 307
Page 5 of 5 Conclusion In conclusion the submitted application is merely for planning permission in principle, and prior to the submission of the application the Council’s Planning Officer confirmed in writing that “the principle of residential development at the site is considered acceptable in principle”. Furthermore, when the review application was submitted the application site was mainly within a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA). Whilst these are no more, they were originally mapped specifically with a view to identifying areas within which there is a general capacity to successfully absorb small scale housing development. They included open countryside locations where appropriate forms of small- scale housing development would be in tune with landscape character and development pattern. Consequently, there was always a strong presumption in favour of small-scale housing development within the ROAs. 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. I trust that this is sufficient for your needs however please do not hesitate to let me know if you wish me to provide more information on any point. Yours sincerely Michael Hyde MRTPI MH Planning Associates Page 67
Page 308
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 309
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Costs Decision Hearing Held on 26 June 2019 Site visit made on 25 and 26 June 2019 by Alexander Walker MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th July 2019 Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/18/3210480 Former Shefford Lower School, land off Wynchwood Lane, Shefford SG17 5XA • The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78, 322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5). • The application is made by Mr Troy Mayer on behalf of Black Horse Residential Ltd. for a full award of costs against Central Bedfordshire Council. • The hearing was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of 7 new dwellings. Decision 1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below. The submissions for Mr Troy Mayer on behalf of Black Horse Residential Ltd. 2. The applicant claims that whilst the decision notice refers to a single policy, Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) 2009, the Council has provided no evidence as to why the proposal does not accord with this policy. 3. Furthermore, the Council have proposed the site for development from the marketing exercise. The approach taken by the local highway authority that the access of Wynchwood Lane is unsuitable would sterilise the site, which is an unreasonable turnaround on behalf of the Council The response by Central Bedfordshire Council 4. The Council refute the applicant’s first claim as Policy DM3 is clearly identified in the reason for refusal. Furthermore, it was not necessary to raise it in addition to the applicant’s discussion on Policy DM3 during the hearing. 5. In response to the second claim, the Council state that the local planning authority and highway authority were not involved in the preparation of this evidence submitted at the marketing stage of the site. Furthermore, whilst the pre-application advice was in favour of the proposal, this does not prejudice the local planning authority’s consideration of the formal submission of the application. Page 69
Page 310
Costs Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3210480 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Reasons 6. Planning Policy Guidance advises that, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary expense in the appeal process. 7. The reason for refusal set out in the decision notice is complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. It also clearly states that the proposal would conflict with Policy DM3 of the CSDMP. This reason was adequately substantiated by the Council in its statement of case, which demonstrates how the proposal would harm highway safety, with particular regard to visibility and access for refuse collection vehicles. Whilst the Council does not explicitly refer to DM3 in in its statement of case, the applicant evidently identified the relevance of this policy, stating during the hearing that bullet point 8 was the relevant part of the policy, to which the Council agreed. By the inclusion of this Policy within the reason for refusal, and with bullet point 8 being the only relevant part of it to this proposal, it is clear to infer from this and their remaining evidence that the Council finds that the proposal does not incorporate appropriate access. 8. Therefore, in this regard, I do not consider that the Council have behaved unreasonably. 9. With regard to the second claim, the site was marketed by the Council. In support of this marketing exercise was a Transport Statement, prepared by PSP Consulting for Bidwells, on behalf of the Council’s Estates Department. The statement identifies that there is adequate 2m x2m pedestrian visibility splays at the point of access from the site onto Wynchwood Lane. There is no indication as to whether the access off Wynchwood Lane onto Ampthill Road would be suitable. Nevertheless, the statement concludes that there will be no objection from the highway authority to the residential redevelopment of the site. 10. Following the applicant’s purchase of the site, a pre-application enquiry was submitted to the Council for the demolition of the existing building and erection of 7 dwellings. In respect of issues pertaining to Highway Safety and Car Parking, the response was that the access route along Wynchwood Lane would be sufficient to allow two way traffic movements and with a footway of nearly 3m along Ampthill Road visibility at the junction meets design standards. I note that it does not specifically refer to driver/pedestrian or driver/driver inter-visibility. Nevertheless, given that these are fundamental highway safety considerations, it seems highly unlikely that both of these aspects were not considered. 11. There is no evidence that the development plan and any relevant guidance has changed since the marketing exercise was carried out and the pre-application advice given. The Council confirmed that the advice given was that of the individual officer at the time, who no longer works for the Council. Nevertheless, the advice given was on behalf of the Council. The appellant, understandably, submitted the application on the basis of this advice. 12. The current Council highways officer considers that the proposal does conflict with the development plan and relevant guidance. Whilst I appreciate that the pre-application advice is not binding upon the Council, it clearly indicates that Page 70
Page 311
Costs Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3210480 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 there would be no objection to the proposal on highways grounds. The sudden change in the Council’s position, which stemmed purely from a change in the highways officer considering the proposal, as confirmed by the Council, resulted in the application being refused and the subject appeal being lodged. I find that this sudden change in position without any reasonable justification, other than a difference of professional opinion between two Council officers, amounts to unreasonable behaviour on behalf of the Council. Such behaviour provides a great deal of uncertainty to the developer, particularly in this instance as the application was submitted with a justifiable expectation that it would be approved. 13. As I have found that the proposal would not result in any significantly harmful effect on highway safety, as a result of this unreasonable behaviour the appellant has incurred unnecessary costs in the appeal process. Conclusion 14. I conclude therefore that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense has been demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified. Costs Order 15. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Central Bedfordshire Council shall pay to Mr Troy Mayer on behalf of Black Horse Residential Ltd., the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision. 16. The applicant is now invited to submit to Central Bedfordshire Council, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching agreement as to the amount. Alexander Walker INSPECTOR Page 71
Page 312
This page is intentionally left blank