Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 May 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 20 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 13 May 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 20 MAY 2024 at 10:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. CONSIDER NOTICE OF REVIEW REQUEST: GARDEN GROUND OF FERNLEA, POLVINISTER ROAD, OBAN, PA34 5TN (REF: 24/0007/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 110) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 111 - 130) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 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
= * /* 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
.
Page 35
- # #@A .* 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
= /* 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
=
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
* - / % 1% /% B
Page 65
1
Page 66
. 0/0;% . +
Page 67
1 ./ # "/ # "/ AC ? !! .* $#$ *(3
Page 68
& &, Page 4
Page 69
Page 70
+
Page 71
Page 72
- 3 + 3 &
Page 73
Page 74
* + - 7
Page 75
Page 76
3 - 5 6< "!! 8 > -
Page 77
No embedded text on this page.
Page 78
* 4 5 - 6
Page 79
Page 80
* <
Page 81
3 , 8& - & 1 & - + - -
Page 82
Page 83
& >
Page 84
+ 3 4 5 - / & B - 3
Page 85
Page 86
& /
Page 87
Page 88
3 *
Page 89
Page 90
63 - +
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
< 8 D
Page 94
Page 95
-&
Page 96
: -7 3 , + 3 - E
Page 97
6 - ,
Page 98
8& :
Page 99
' * ,
Page 100
+ 3& 0- * +
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
F; E 5 6< "!! 8 / , + -
Page 104
No embedded text on this page.
Page 105
-
Page 106
7
Page 107
- - 3
Page 108
), , & :
Page 109
3+ 3 3 3 *-
Page 110
Page 111
Page 112
6 < -
Page 113
-
Page 114
87
Page 115
3
Page 116
+ *
Page 117
*- *
Page 118
*- ' - < & @+
Page 119
3 3 *-
Page 120
-- : / 3
Page 121
4 5 0- 7
Page 122
< * < * 37 3 3 7 3 3
Page 123
3
Page 124
-- *- 3
Page 125
Page 126
Page 127
3
Page 128
Page 129
*
Page 130
Page 131
+ 3 5 6< "!! 8
Page 132
-
Page 133
Page 134
- )
Page 135
- <
Page 136
3 ;
Page 137
; -
Page 138
Page 139
Page 5
Page 140
+
Page 141
-
Page 142
7
Page 143
+
Page 144
3 3 * 3 - + 3
Page 145
Page 146
- + 3& :
Page 147
5 6< "!! 8 +
Page 148
- & + * - + & >
Page 149
3 *
Page 150
4 5 >
Page 151
3
Page 152
Page 153
* 4 5 + 3
Page 154
3
Page 155
Page 156
Page 157
*
Page 158
Page 159
+ 3
Page 160
Page 161
+ 3 ' - - *
Page 162
*
Page 163
+ 3& 1 - * '
Page 164
* * -
Page 165
7 3 * G
Page 166
-
Page 167
9
Page 168
3 *H - + 3 & + 3 7 7 *
Page 169
+ 3 - + - +
Page 170
Page 171
* -
Page 172
7 3 -
Page 173
4 1 <7 3 * 7 7 & 5 : / 0 + + 3
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
7 * -
Page 179
*
Page 180
4 5 : / 0 * - *
Page 181
-
Page 182
3 * 4 5 : / 0- 3 , + 3
Page 183
3
Page 184
* *
Page 185
,
Page 186
7 < & 6< "!! 8
Page 187
< ) - ' + 3
Page 188
< = ) -
Page 189
< ) / - - - = 9!!$?9
Page 190
< # )
Page 191
6$&!?&= 8
Page 192
< " ) ; 0-
Page 193
Page 194
< $ ) ,
Page 195
< ? ) + 3
Page 196
Page 197
==I!!!I 6= I!!!?I 8
Page 198
< ) + 3
Page 199
Page 200
=!I!"#=I 6= !!!" 8 = 9!!$?9 =#9!9=!=# 3 J
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
* -
Page 204
& + 3
Page 205
* *
Page 206
*
Page 207
,
Page 208
+ & !9!"9=!= Page 6
Page 209
- 3 , , + +
Page 210
Page 211
- - & 1 * - *
Page 212
Page 213
+
Page 214
& @+ +
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
No embedded text on this page.
Page 219
- 4& 5 : / @+ +
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
- * - 3 *H - : / + 34 5 0- 7 *- - 7 + +
Page 224
Page 225
No embedded text on this page.
Page 226
- : / /9
Page 227
Page 228
No embedded text on this page.
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
3
Page 233
'
Page 234
3 + 3
Page 235
* 4 5 @+ +
Page 236
Page 237
- ' + 3
Page 238
* 3 : /
Page 239
6 * -
Page 240
8 3 + 3 *
Page 241
Page 242
4 5 / : 7 -7 3 , + 3 & :
Page 243
' * ,
Page 244
+ 3& : + -
Page 245
No embedded text on this page.
Page 246
- + 3
Page 247
& 0 - * 3 - + 37 -
Page 248
+
Page 249
Page 250
3 + 3
Page 251
Page 252
- + 3& -
Page 253
7
Page 254
+
Page 255
3
Page 256
: / 6&&
Page 257
3 8 3 3 *H - + 3 5 / > + 3 - && 3 -
Page 258
- 7 + + -
Page 259
3 - + - -
Page 260
Page 261
7
Page 262
+ * +
Page 263
- *7 +
Page 264
Page 265
No embedded text on this page.
Page 266
6 - 8 - & 09> 9 - - + 3
Page 267
Page 268
& / * > !"9!#9=!=# Page 7
Page 269
Appendix 1: Request for Review for Refusal of Planning Permission ref: 23/01067/PP Introduction: A planning application was submitted on the 30th May 2023 by Iain Robertson of West Highland Architects on behalf of Graham and Oonagh Fielden which was validated on the 29th of June ref: 23/01067/PP. The application was to seek permission for the sitting of a single glamping pod to be used for short-term seasonal holiday use within the garden grounds of the applicants dwelling house ‘Fernlea’. Following a lengthy planning process, the application was refused under delegated powers on the 24th of January 2024 (Appendix 3) for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development conflicts with NPF4 Policy 13, and Policies LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the adopted 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' 2015 and Policy 37 of emerging proposed 'Local Development Plan 2' as the proposed development would result in the intensification in vehicular use of a sub-standard private road with no delineation between pedestrian or vehicular use. The proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, does not form part of the planning application site and is not within the acknowledged legal ownership/control of the Applicant. During the planning process and within the delegated report of handling, the main reason for the refusal of this application is based on the comments received from the A&BC Roads oƯicer (Appendix 4) in relations to NPF4 Policy 13. All other NPF4 policies have been assessed and the proposed application meets their requirements and is confirmed appropriate in all other planning aspects. Therefore, this Notice of Review will focus on NPF4 Policy 13 and provide further justification in order to try and achieve a positive outcome following a review undertaken by the LRB. Discussion: The current application has been subject to objection from the Roads Engineer who advised that the existing private road, which also forms part of the Longsdale Footpath, is narrow with poor geometry, serves numerous properties and has limited passing opportunities. The private road has narrow verges and provides limited step oƯ areas for pedestrians. The Roads Authority concluded by stating that the private road is unsuitable for further development or intensification of use. Whilst we take on board all of these comments, we feel that they alone do not merit suƯicient justification to determine the application for refusal. It has also been noted that the type of consent being applied for is noted as planning permission in principle on the Roads consultation response dated 16th August 2023 whereas our application submitted is for full planning permission. (we have presumed this to be a typo error copied over from another similar consultation response) Page 8
Page 270
During the planning consultation process and when the first consultation response was received from the Roads oƯicer (Appendix 4) recommending the application for refusal, the client prepared and issued additional supporting documentation in response to the comments received from the Roads engineer which can be viewed in (Appendix 5). This additional information presented a number of photo’s taken at various locations along the private access road leading up to the application site to try and demonstrate that the existing private access road is of an acceptable standard and can suƯiciently accommodate any additional traƯic which may be generated from the sitting of the proposed glamping pod. The private access road serves 5no. individual properties including the applicants house Fernlea and measures 3m at its narrowest point and extends for a total length of 118m (0.07miles) from the junction of the UC72 Polvinister Road to the application site boundary. There is corner at the bottom of the road and then then majority of the access is straight with good sightlines climbing approximately 10m over a gradual incline. Along this section of private road which is also part of the core path C160(c) network, there is an adequate roadside grass verge which provides step oƯ areas for pedestrians when met by vehicles using the access road. The vast majority of the grass verge is 1m in width and at points, there is suƯicient space to accommodate vehicles which can be seen within the photo’s contained within Appendix 5. Following the submission of this additional information to the planning authority, the client also prepared a risk assessment (Appendix 6) as further supporting documentation and the suggestion of a site visit to discuss the application and in particular the issues raised by the Roads engineer. A further response was received from the Roads engineer maintaining their initial objection to this application whilst also advising that a site visit would not be required. Potential B&B usage: Limited B&B activity is a prescribed right for any householders with properties of certain sizes up to certain thresholds without needing planning permission. The applicants house ‘Fernlea’ is Aerial view showing extent of private road Page 9
Page 271
a four-bedroom detached dwelling which could be used for B&B purposes, and we feel that this potential usage needs to be considered whilst reviewing this application for an ancillary pod within the garden grounds of the applicant’s house. It is of no consequence whether B&B activity is active or not (past and present) but merely the ability to do so. And likewise, this prescribed right could be adopted by any of the other four properties accessed from the same private access road. The proposed pod is ancillary to an existing dwelling and would see no significant increase in traƯic (as noted in the design statement) and fundamentally is no diƯerent to a room within the applicant’s house being used for B&B purposes or any of the other dwelling houses accessed by the private road operating a B&B from their properties and the potential of additional vehicular movements. Neither of which would be subject to planning or roads department consultation. Our suggestion would be that the potential usage of a room within the applicant’s dwelling house for B&B usage is transferred to this ancillary pod within the garden grounds of the applicant’s house. NOTE: the use of one bedroom for B&B within a house containing three bedrooms, or two bedrooms for B&B within houses containing four or more bedrooms, is explicitly provided for within Class 9 (houses) of the Use Classes Order - and has been so since 1999 Similar Applications as precedents: Broom Hill ref: 22/01001/PP (Appendix 7) This application was recently submitted for the sitting of a single glamping pod within the garden ground of Broom Hill, Ardconnel Hill, Oban. The application lies within close proximity of the applicant’s site and was refused planning permission following the comments received by the Roads engineer. A Notice for Review was submitted and following this, a positive outcome was sought, and planning permission was granted. Broom Hill was previously used for the letting of two bedrooms for B&B purposes and that such usage would be modified to facilitate a glamping pod within their garden grounds. During the LRB meeting, Councillor Brown sought clarity on the position that each of the houses serviced by the private access road could in theory operate as a B&B premises, increasing the vehicular use of the private access road and there would be nothing to stop them. The planning oƯicer confirmed this to be the case and we feel that this is an identical situation to the application which we are seeking permission for. A condition was added to the Broom Hill permission to state: ‘the new glamping pod hereby approved must not be occupied during any period when any bedrooms within the principal dwelling house are operating as (or being occupied as) bed & breakfast or guest house accommodation ‘ Based on the similarities between this recent application and which was subsequently approved following a Notice for Review, we would consider it appropriate that a similar condition could be included to monitor and maintain vehicular movements whilst protected future usage should the property change ownership. Soroba Lodge ref: 20/01542/PP (Appendix 8) A planning application was submitted for two holiday pods within the garden ground of Soroba Lodge, which is served via a shared private access. Soroba Lodge had the ability to operate two Page 10
Page 272
bedrooms for B&B purposes within the main house. The Planning Department and Roads Engineer were concerned about traƯic levels on the shared private access and ultimately the application was refused under delegated powers. An appeal against the refusal was however successful. When issuing planning permission in May 2022 under ref 21/0005/LRB, the Local Review Body attached planning condition 3 to prohibit occupation of the two approved pods at any time when B&B activity was occurring within the house. It is of no consequence whether B&B activity is active. Limited B&B activity is a prescribed right for householders with properties of certain sizes up to certain thresholds without needing planning permission. Indeed, it is this very ability to exercise that right without needing planning permission that led to planning oƯicer concerns about the inability to prevent B&B usage in the future in both the Soroba Lodge and Broom Hill examples. The outcome of the Notice of Reviews at both Broom Hill (23/0007/LRB) and Soroba Lodge (21/0005/LRB) provides a direct precedent example which can be readily compared to the planning application at Fernlea. Summary: Mr & Mrs Fielden are seeking permission to sit a single glamping pod within the garden ground of their existing home ‘Fernlea’. The design, siting and layout for the proposed pod has been confirmed acceptable in all respects by planning oƯicers, except for concerns over the existing shared access regime serving the site. Those concerns are reflected in the single reason for refusal detailed previously namely comments received from the Roads Engineer over the existing access road. The decision to refuse overstates the anticipated vehicular demands associated with the development, pays insuƯicient regard to existing traƯic levels at the site, and ignores a precedent case of direct relevance. This is the type of development that is commonly approved by the Planning Authority without any concerns over increase in vehicular demand. We would stress again, that the applicant’s house is a four-bedroom detached dwelling which could be used for B&B purposes, and it is of no consequence whether B&B activity is active or not (past and present) but merely the ability to do so. The proposed pod would not generate a material intensification in traƯic as suggested. Mr and Mrs Fielden being residents with young children in the area do not wish to be providing multiple turnovers on a daily basis and as such propose the following condition as to allow vehicular movements to be minimised. Planning condition wording could potentially read: Condition - Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 as amended, the new glamping pod hereby approved must only be made available for periods not less than a 3-day occupancy Reason - In the interests of road safety, to ensure that vehicle numbers using the private access do not increase beyond current levels. Furthermore, Visitors using the pod shall be encouraged to use alternative means to access Oban, such as walking and cycling, given the sites location and close proximity to core path network. Page 11
Page 273
The Local Review Body is asked to support this Notice of Review and we would stress that a site visit is undertaken to view the existing access road and ask any further questions you may have regarding this Notice for Review. We hope that a positive outcome can be reached to enable a small positive contribution towards the local tourist accommodation in a way that accords with local and national planning policy and raises no unacceptable impacts. Page 12
Page 274
Appendix 2 - Planning Application Form Page 13
Page 275
Page 14
Page 276
Page 15
Page 277
Page 16
Page 278
Page 17
Page 279
Page 18
Page 280
Page 19
Page 281
Page 20
Page 282
Page 21
Page 283
Appendix 3 - Decision Notice (Refusal of planning application ref 23_01067_PP) Page 22
Page 284
Municipal Buildings Albany Street Oban PA34 4AW TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE NUMBER: 23/01067/PP Mr Graham Fielden Fernlea Polvinister Road Oban Argyll and Bute PA34 5TN I refer to your application dated 1st June 2023 for planning permission in respect of the following development: Siting of accommodation pod for short term letting use AT: Garden Ground Of Fernlea Polvinister Road Oban Argyll And Bute Argyll and Bute Council in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act and Regulations hereby refuse planning permission for the above development for the reasons(s) contained in the attached appendix. Dated: 24 January 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 23
Page 285
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 23/01067/PP 1. The proposed development conflicts with NPF4 Policy 13, and Policies LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the adopted 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' 2015 and Policy 37 of emerging proposed 'Local Development Plan 2' as the proposed development would result in the intensification in vehicular use of a sub-standard private road with no delineation between pedestrian or vehicular use. The proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, does not form part of the planning application site and is not within the acknowledged legal ownership/control of the Applicant. Page 24
Page 286
NOTES TO APPLICANT (1) RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 23/01067/PP 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 25
Page 287
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application: 23/01067/PP A. Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. No (delete as appropriate) if yes, list amendments B. Is the proposal a departure from the Development Plan: No If yes, state level of departure: No Departure C. Summary justification statement for refusal of planning permission N/A Page 26
Page 288
June 2023 Utilities Statement in Support of a Planning Application for Accommodation Pod Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban 1. Background Information The applicant is Mr Graham Fielden whose current residence is Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban. The home located in the semi-rural on the outskirts of Oban and he hopes to be able to offer a unique accommodation opportunity in a sustainable manner and help satisfy local demand for this type of holiday accommodation to satisfy demand from visitors to the area 2. Site Proposals - Foul Water The existing dwelling known as Fearnlea on the application site has a connection to the main Scottish water foul sewer in place already. The proposal for the pod is to connect into the existing private dwelling system which is then in turn connected to the public network. Therefore, a new connection is not required for the new pod development as the building is considered ancillary to the main dwelling. 3. Site Proposals - Surface Water Surface water arising from the new pod will be taken to a gravel soakaway around the new pod and will not require a connection to the public network. 4. Site Proposals - Water Connection The existing dwelling known as Fearnlea on the application site has a connection to the mains Scottish Water mains water pipe in place already. The proposal for the pod is to take a connection from the existing dwelling on the site and feed the pod from the sites existing connection. Therefore, a new connection is not required for the new pod development as the building is considered ancillary to the main dwelling. Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 27
Page 289
ub Sta Craigdarroch Kerith 44.2m Orasay Fernlea Sheridan 57.0m Chanonry Glenesk 58.5m in Terok-nor W estwood 46.3m 64.3m Tigh Sonais Touchstone Neidpath Rowan Elrig ROAD 48.5m W rangholm Torren agar Ronaldsay Strathd Ardgarbh POLVINISTER Cuildrynoch Broom Hill The Whins Kildalton Um tali Lataska Bornish Ciscolli Ardlussa 71.3m Cottage Sabdenbrook Larchfield Alron Taigh Allt Cabarfeidh Na Feidh 63.4m Fernlea 0 50 100 150 N Detail Scale Job No Date 22823-WHAS-ZZ-XX-PL-A-00-0001-01 Planning Application LOCATION PLAN 1:1250 April 2023 Project Client Proposed Accommodation Pod at Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban Mr G Fielden Application site outlined in RED Other land in ownership of the Applicant in BLUE Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 28
Page 290
LOUNGE BED SHW SIDE ELEVATION FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN 6000 3300 2540 FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION 0 5 Detail Scale Job No Date 22823-WHAS-ZZ-XX-PL-A-00-0003-01 Planning Application PLANS & ELEVATIONS 1:50 April 2023 Project Client Proposed Accommodation Pod at Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban Mr G Fielden Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 29
Page 291
1.8m high timber slatted fence 1.8m high timber slatted fence Space for Hot Tub Timber Decking 100mm stone chipped border around pod with timber edging POD SITE LAYOUT Compacted gravel path with timber edging 0 5 Detail Scale Job No Date 22823-WHAS-ZZ-XX-PL-A-00-0004-01 Planning Application EXTERNAL SITE LAYOUT 1:50 May 2023 Project Client Proposed Accommodation Pod at Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban Mr G Fielden Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 30
Page 292
Statement in response to Consultee Response - Roads - 16/08/2023 in relation to Planning Application for Accommodation Pod Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban In reference to consultee response your ref 23/01067/PP (Your contact James Jackson, Operational Services), we would respond as follows: The road referenced is a private un-adopted road that also falls with thin the core path network in this area, we understand due to the un-adopted nature of the road the comments submitted by the Roads department are advisory and we would seek to address them in the following ways; “the private Road is narrow with poor geometry.” The private road is single track and measures 3.0m at its narrowest point and extends for a total length of 118m as shown below in fig1. For the greater length of this distance the road is straight with good sight lines Figure 1: Illustration showing total length of Private Road “Narrow verges provide limited step off areas for pedestrians” The vast majority of the road length has step of verges of greater than 1.0m in width. The applicant will maintain the verges along its length in order that they do not become overgrown and are accessible to those accessing the track. This shall also be a benefit not only to visitors to the development but also to users utilising the core path network. The access road already forms part of the core path network in the area and regular users of the path already use the current verges to step of the road when vehicles use this route. Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 31
Page 293
“the private road serves numerous houses” The total number of houses served by the private road is only five (Including the applicant’s property) The application proposal should not be considered, as it seems to be, as a new dwelling. The proposed pod is ancillary to an existing dwelling which already uses the un-adopted access road. The proposal would see no significant increase in traffic (as noted in the design statement) on this section of road and is no different to any of the properties accessed by the un-adopted road operating a B&B operation from their home or a home having 2 or 3 cars neither of which would be subject to planning or roads department consultation and would have a more substantial impact that that of the submitted proposal. Operational Services already note that the road falls within a 20mph speed restriction area which is to the benefit of the site access. We would be grateful if the above statements can be taken into consideration in your determination of the application and we would welcome the opportunity to provide further comment on a site visit is desired. Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 32
Page 294
SupportingInformationinrelation to Statement in response to Consultee Response -Roads -16/08/2023 in relation to Planning Application for Accommodation Pod Fernlea, PolvinisterRoad, Oban ȃȄɑȁȂȁȇȈɑ ʰ«ļƣļŝİŨįíĉĉŨś ś ŨĐíƣļŨŝ ƋŨĐįŨƎƖķŨƎƣƣėƎś ŒėƣƣļŝİƫƖėʰGíƎĐėŝ GƎŨƫŝĐ}įFėƎŝŒėí ŨŒǂļŝļƖƣėƎ£ŨíĐ}Ĉíŝ ƎİljŒŒŝĐ ƫƣė Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 33
Page 295
View looking up the private access road in the direction of Fernlea. View down the private access road in the direction of PolvinisterRoad Typical section of verge Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 34
Page 296
View lookinguptheprivateroadinthedirectionof Fernlea Typical section of verge Vehicle accessible width of verge Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 35
Page 297
Typical section of verge View looking in the direction of Fernlea Vehicle accessible verge at on Private Road Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 36
Page 298
Typical section of verge Typical section of verge (Looking up the private Road) Typical section of verge (Looking down the Private road) Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 37
Page 299
May 2023 (Rev02 - 27 July 2023) Design and Access Statement in Support of a Planning Application for Accommodation Pod Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban 1. Background Information The applicant is Mr Graham Fielden whose current residence is Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban. The home located in the semi-rural on the outskirts of Oban and he hopes to be able to offer a unique accommodation opportunity in a sustainable manner and help satisfy local demand for this type of holiday accommodation to satisfy demand from visitors to the area 2. Site Appraisal The total application site extends to an area of approx. 0.1Ha. The property is bounded on the south, west and east by other detached dwellings on Polvinister Road to the north the site is bounded by rough grazing land. The site is split over 2 generally level areas, the lower part of the site is where the current residence is sited along with garden ground and parking areas, a steep banking leads to another upper-level area which was is garden area. Development would not involve a great deal of site preparation or earth moving as the proposal seeks to work with the landscape. Disabled access would possibly be difficult to achieve however ambulant disabled access would be possible. The site is accessed from the existing Polvinster road and the small scale of the development would have no overall impact on the use of the road as this proposal is associated with an existing dwelling. Using Argyll & Bute Councils own data an average length of stay in the area is between 4 to 6 days on average, taken over a maximum occupancy period of 48 weeks in any year then this would equate to approximately 69 vehicle movements per year directly associated with the pod. Visitors to the pod would also be encouraged to walk around the area (it is as quick to walk into the town centre from the site as it is to drive), promotion of existing walking routes in the area would be visible to visitors to the pod. The access road to the site is single track and also serves the 3 other dwellings in the immediate vicinity, the road is verged with grass verges of at least 1.0m wide and would provide sufficient pedestrian separation along its line. Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 38
Page 300
May 2023 (Rev02 - 27 July 2023) The site slopes from north to south, access between the levels on site would be by means of a new path working with the site contours with a mix of ramp and steps. The proposed siting of the hut would have no overall impact on the existing housing group. The buildings surrounding the site are of similar style and mostly single and two storey detached dwellings. The new pod will be small scale and be mobile. The choice for external finishing materials would reflect the existing situation to ensure that the hut would be ‘appropriate’ in its setting in order to accord with both Council Development Plan Policies and Scottish Government Guidance. 3. Services A mains water supply is proposed and is available within the site boundary. An electricity supply is also available within the site boundaries. A public sewage system is available within the site boundaries. 4. Policy Considerations The overall aims of this proposal are to ensure that the proposed pod accommodation is carefully located, is worthy of its setting and is the result of an imaginative, responsive and sensitive design process. The proposal will fulfil these aims and in so doing will provide a sustainable development not out of keeping in its surroundings. This sensitive approach is in accordance with the aims of Scottish Government Guidance as expressed in Planning Advice Note 72 – Housing in the Countryside. The site is also covered by the National Planning Framework 4, the applicable policies are stated in the table below Policy 30(b) – Tourism (a) Tourism is central to the proposal and the aims of the policy can be identified in the following ways; i. The proposal shall make a positive contribution to the local economy by providing accommodation for visitors to the area and allow them to enjoy the services offered in the local area. Argyll and Bute council state “Tourism is an extremely important sector for Argyll and Bute employing almost 25% of private sector jobs and 9% of Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 39
Page 301
May 2023 (Rev02 - 27 July 2023) our GVA compared to a 3% GVA average for Scotland3” Table 1 below also demonstrates the positive impact tourism makes to the local economy ii. The proposal fits in with similar tourism related activities in the general locality. iii. The provision of homes for local people would not be impacted by this development as it does not take an existing home out of the market. iv. The applicant intends to provide an electric car charging point on the site which will encourage more users of sustainable transport to make use of the accommodation. Fernlea also benefits from an existing 2.4kw solar PV installation which will enable the charging point to be optimised for use that would not further incumber the National Grid. v. With the elevation of the site wheelchair access would be difficult however careful planning of the access would allow ambulant disabled users to make use of the accommodation. The applicant has personal experience of family members with disabilities and recognises and are supportive of the requirements of parents and carers of those with additional needs to be able to feel welcome and safe when taking a much-needed holiday. vi. The buildings are formed from sustainable timber sources and contribute to net zero targets. Heating will be from non-carbon- based sources. vii.The site is on the fringes of the natural environment and access to this is encouraged by the applicants. The proposal also looks to work around the natural environment on site and take advantage of existing ecology and landscape. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy 30(b). Table 1. Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 40
Page 302
May 2023 (Rev02 - 27 July 2023) 5. Site Photographs Proposed Pod Location View towards rear of pod site Proposed site Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 41
Page 303
May 2023 (Rev02 - 27 July 2023) View from Front of proposed Pod site Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 42
Page 304
May 2023 (Rev02 - 27 July 2023) Access Road & Existing Parking area with site above Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 43
Page 305
May 2023 (Rev02 - 27 July 2023) Access route to pod level to be improved and reprofiled Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 44
Page 306
Fernlea Sheridan 58.5m r POD Parking & Turning Area Pod parking ex. mh mh mh re water connection to pod taken from existing house waste water connection from pod to connect into the existing house system new footpath and steps to access pod new footpath and steps to access pod new screen fence new screen fence waste water connection from pod to connect into the existing house system EV charging Point APPLICATION SITE OUTLINED IN RED =0.058Ha new 1.8 - 2.0m high beech hedge new 1.8 - 2.0m high beech hedge 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DRAINAGE NOTES: 1. Drainage: The wastewater drainage system is to be constructed and installed in accordance with - a. for sanitary pipework, BS EN 12056-2:200 above ground drainage pipes to be in uPVC sized as follows- Dn 110 to WC Dn 32 to WHB Dn 40 to Bath & SHW Dn 110 to Soil Vent Pipe (SVP) All branch wastes to be trapped and SVP to have accessible rodding point. 75mm deep trap seal to be provided to the washbasin. WCs to be connected separately to the SVP and should not share the same branch as other ware. All pipe diameters below floor slab to be Dn 110 b. for a drainage system outside the building, BS EN 752-3:1997 (amend 2), BS 752-4:1998 and BS EN 1610:1998 c. for a sewer that is intended for vesting in the water authority, "Sewers in Scotland". d. for rainwater pipes and gutters, BS EN 12056-3:2000 2. Gradient of all undeerground drains to be installed at not less than 1 in 80 3. Min. 200mm diameter radius bend at foot of drainage stacks svp denotes 100mm dia. soil and vent pipe taken through roof aav denotes 100mm dia. air admittance valve stub denotes 100mm dia. stub stack rwp denotes rainwater pipe position re denotes rodding eye mh denotes manhole ic denotes inspection chamber big denotes back inlet gully ________ denotes underground foul water drain ________ denotes underground surface water drain Denotes min. 50mm gravel on min. 150mm well compacted hardcore base Denotes site boundary line. Denotes new grass seeded topsoil Denotes paving slabs on blinding and compacted hardcore base - slabs laid with crossfall away from building Legend: N Project Client Detail Scale Job No Date 22823-WHAS-ZZ-XX-PL-00-0002-02 Proposed Accommodation Pod at Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban Mr G Fielden Planning Application SITE PLAN 1:200 April 2023 Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 45
Page 307
x ExisƟng View from approximate locaƟon of the front of the new Pod x ExisƟng fence is in the region of 1.0m high x Proposed View with screen hedge planted on line of exisƟng fence x Preserves private of the immediate neighbouring properƟes whilst maintaining the longer view from site x Proposed hedging to be between 1.8m and 2.0m high x Hedging will also screen the pod from the lower areas so when looking up from the access road the pod will not be visible behind the hedge. x Improved biodiversity on site with hedging aƩracƟng new species to site. ApplicaƟon for new Pod at Fearnlea, Polvinster Road, Oban Mr G Fielden Screening Proposal Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 46
Page 308
May 2023 (Rev01 - July 23) Design and Access Statement in Support of a Planning Application for Accommodation Pod Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban 1. Background Information The applicant is Mr Graham Fielden whose current residence is Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban. The home located in the semi-rural on the outskirts of Oban and he hopes to be able to offer a unique accommodation opportunity in a sustainable manner and help satisfy local demand for this type of holiday accommodation to satisfy demand from visitors to the area 2. Site Appraisal The total application site extends to an area of approx. 0.1Ha. The property is bounded on the south, west and east by other detached dwellings on Polvinister Road to the north the site is bounded by rough grazing land. The site is split over 2 generally level areas, the lower part of the site is where the current residence is sited along with garden ground and parking areas, a steep banking leads to another upper-level area which was is garden area. Development would not involve a great deal of site preparation or earth moving as the proposal seeks to work with the landscape. Disabled access would possibly be difficult to achieve however ambulant disable access would be possible. The site slopes from north to south, access between the levels on site would be by means of a new path working with the site contours with a mix of ramp and steps. The proposed siting of the hut would have no overall impact on the existing housing group. The buildings surrounding the site are of similar style and mostly single and two storey detached dwellings. The new pod will be small scale and be mobile. The choice for external finishing materials would reflect the existing situation to ensure that the hut would be ‘appropriate’ in its setting in order to accord with both Council Development Plan Policies and Scottish Government Guidance. Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 47
Page 309
May 2023 (Rev01 - July 23) 3. Services A mains water supply is proposed and is available within the site boundary. An electricity supply is also available within the site boundaries. A public sewage system is available within the site boundaries. 4. Policy Considerations The overall aims of this proposal are to ensure that the proposed pod accommodation is carefully located, is worthy of its setting and is the result of an imaginative, responsive and sensitive design process. The proposal will fulfil these aims and in so doing will provide a sustainable development not out of keeping in its surroundings. This sensitive approach is in accordance with the aims of Scottish Government Guidance as expressed in Planning Advice Note 72 – Housing in the Countryside. The site is also covered by the National Planning Framework 4, the applicable policies are stated in the table below Policy 30(b) – Tourism (a) Tourism is central to the proposal and the aims of the policy can be identified in the following ways; i. The proposal shall make a positive contribution to the local economy by providing accommodation for visitors to the area and allow them to enjoy the services offered in the local area.. ii. The proposal fits in with similar tourism related activities in the general locality. iii. The provision of homes for local people would not be impacted by this development as it does not take an existing home out of the market. iv. The applicant intends to provide an electric car charging point on the site which will encourage more users sustainable transport to make use of the accommodation. v. With the elevation of the site wheelchair access would be difficult however careful planning of the access would allow ambulant disabled users to make use of the accommodation. vi. The buildings are formed from sustainable timber sources and contribute to net zero targets. Heating will be from non-carbon- based sources. vii.The site is on the fringes of the natural environment and access to this Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 48
Page 310
May 2023 (Rev01 - July 23) is encouraged by the applicants. The proposal also looks to work around the natural environment on site and take advantage of existing ecology and landscape. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy 30(b). 5. Site Photographs Proposed Pod Location Proposed site Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 49
Page 311
May 2023 (Rev01 - July 23) View towards rear of pod site View from Front of proposed Pod site Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 50
Page 312
May 2023 (Rev01 - July 23) Access Road & Existing Parking area with site above Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 51
Page 313
May 2023 (Rev01 - July 23) Access route to pod level to be improved and reprofiled Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 52
Page 314
Siting of accommodation pod for short term letting use Garden Ground of Fernlea Polvinister Road Oban Argyll and Bute Ref. No: 23/01067/PP ManagementPlan Theapplicantandthisapplicationrecognisetheimportanceofgoodneighbourrelationsandenvironmental impactandassuch,themanagementplanstipulateshowthisshallbeachieved. Thepodshallbeletsubjecttotermsandconditionswhichshallbeagreedatpointofbooking.Theseshall alsobedisplayedatthepod.Itisalsoofnotethatthemaximumoccupancyoftwoadults. Theseconditionsareshown: x UseofPods:ThePodsshallbeusedasaholidayletonlyandfornootherpurpose.Only membersofthebookingpartyshallbepermittedonthesite.Thirdpartyaccessisstrictly prohibited.YoumustnotusetheAccommodation,orallowittobeused,foranydangerous, offensive,noisy,illegalorimmoralactivities.Youmustnotcauseanynuisanceorannoyancetoany neighboursoranyoneelseduringyourstay. x Noise:Wedon’tallowanyamplifiedmusicorloudrevellingthatdisturbslocalresidents.Quiet timeis10:00pmto9:00am.It’sveryimportanttousthatourneighboursareshownrespectandwe allneedsleepfortomorrow’sadventures!Anyonecommittinganuisanceordisturbingthepeace maybeaskedtoleaveimmediatelyandwithoutarefund. x HotTub:Useofthehottubbefore9amandafter10pmisprohibited. x RubbishandRecycling:Wearepassionateaboutrecyclingandwouldaskthatyoucomplyby usingourrecyclingfacilitiesandusethecorrectbinsprovided. x Transport:Weseektominimisevehicularmovementsandrequestthatconsiderationshouldbe giventoothermodesoftransport.Thepodissituatedonthe“CorePathNetwork”andgivesdirect accesstoObanTowncentre.Mapsarelocatedwithintheinformationpacks. x Parking:Onlyonevehicleperbookingispermittedatthesite. x Drones:Theflyingofdronesonthesiteisprohibited. x Safety:Pleaseobservea10mphspeedlimitalongtheaccessroad.Theroadisregularlyusedby pedestriansandresidents. x Pets:Unfortunately,weareunabletoaccommodatepetsatthispod. x Smoking:Thepodisastrictlynosmokingorvapingaccommodation. Itisalsoofnotethere’sverylittlelightpollutioninArgyll,makingitoneofthebestplacesinScotlandto watchthenightsky.Aclearnightcanrevealacanopyofstarsthatwilltakeyourbreathaway.Itcanbe possibletospotsatellites,meteors,meteorshowers,cometsandevenmeteorites,oryoucansimplygaze atthemoon.Fromacitycentrelocation,youmightseefewerthan100starswithournakedeyes.Undera darkskywecanseeover1,000stars.YoumayevenbeluckyenoughtoseetheNorthernLights. x Consideringtheabovethedevelopmentofthepodshallimplement: x Lowlevelilluminationatallfootpaths. x Noadditionallightingshallbeinstalledattheparkingareaasthisalreadybenefitsfromthelighting installedatFernleawhichisaPIR(PassiveInfrared)sensoroperatedlight. x Withintheentrancetothepodthelightingfixturewillbefullyshieldedandemitnolightabovethe horizontalplane. x Internaltothepod,blackoutblindsshallbeinstalled. Argyll and Bute Council REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY Relative to Application No: 23/01067/PP Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth 24 January 2024 Page 53
Page 315
Appendix 4 - Roads Comments (16.07.23) Page 54
Page 316
Page 55
Page 317
Appendix 5 - Supporting Information on Roads Consultation Page 56
Page 318
Statement in response to Consultee Response -Roads -16/08/2023 in relation to Planning Application for Accommodation Pod Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban In reference to consultee response your ref 23/01067/PP (Your contact James Jackson, Operational Services), we would respond as follows: The road referenced is a private un-adopted road that also falls with thin the core path network in this area, we understand due to the un-adopted nature of the road the comments submitted by the Roads department are advisory and we would seek to address them in the following ways; “the private Road is narrow with poor geometry.” The private road is single track and measures 3.0m at its narrowest point and extends for a total length of 118m as shown below in fig1. For the greater length of this distance the road is straight with good sight lines Figure 1: Illustration showing total length of Private Road “Narrow verges provide limited step off areas for pedestrians” The vast majority of the road length has step of verges of greater than 1.0m in width. The applicant will maintain the verges along its length in order that they do not become overgrown and are accessible to those accessing the track. This shall also be a benefit not only to visitors to the development but also to users utilising the core path network. The access road already forms part of the core path network in the area and regular users of the path already use the current verges to step of the road when vehicles use this route. Page 57
Page 319
“the private road serves numerous houses” The total number of houses served by the private road is only five (Including the applicant’s property) The application proposal should not be considered, as it seems to be, as a new dwelling. The proposed pod is ancillary to an existing dwelling which already uses the un-adopted access road. The proposal would see no significant increase in traffic (as noted in the design statement) on this section of road and is no different to any of the properties accessed by the un-adopted road operating a B&B operation from their home or a home having 2 or 3 cars neither of which would be subject to planning or roads department consultation and would have a more substantial impact that that of the submitted proposal. Operational Services already note that the road falls within a 20mph speed restriction area which is to the benefit of the site access. We would be grateful if the above statements can be taken into consideration in your determination of the application and we would welcome the opportunity to provide further comment on a site visit is desired. Page 58
Page 320
SupportingInformationinrelation to Statement in response to Consultee Response -Roads -16/08/2023 in relation to Planning Application for Accommodation Pod Fernlea, PolvinisterRoad, Oban ȃȄɑȁȂȁȇȈɑ ʰ«ļƣļŝİŨįíĉĉŨś ś ŨĐíƣļŨŝ ƋŨĐįŨƎƖķŨƎƣƣėƎś ŒėƣƣļŝİƫƖėʰGíƎĐėŝ GƎŨƫŝĐ}įFėƎŝŒėí ŨŒǂļŝļƖƣėƎ£ŨíĐ}Ĉíŝ ƎİljŒŒŝĐ ƫƣė Page 59
Page 321
View looking up the private access road in the direction of Fernlea. View down the private access road in the direction of PolvinisterRoad Typical section of verge Page 60
Page 322
View lookinguptheprivateroadinthedirectionof Fernlea Typical section of verge Vehicle accessible width of verge Page 61
Page 323
Typical section of verge View looking in the direction of Fernlea Vehicle accessible verge at on Private Road Page 62
Page 324
Typical section of verge Typical section of verge (Looking up the private Road) Typical section of verge (Looking down the Private road) Page 63
Page 325
Appendix 6 - Risk Assessment Page 64
Page 326
Internal Use Appendix 6 -Risk assessment Assessment carried out by: Graham Fielden Date assessment was carried out: 05/10/2023 Activity Hazard Risk Persons in Danger Risk Rating Control Measures Risk left on site Additional Comments W alking up private lane on core path network Live traffic & other road users Struck by pedestrians Med Road has a mandatory 20mph speed limit Low W hilst the road has a 20-mph(which is a benefit) speed limit in reality 20mph is difficult to achieve W alking up private lane on core path network Live traffic & other road users Struck by pedestrians Med Step off verges to be maintainedas per verge management plan Low To ensure pedestrian vehicular separation W alking up private lane on core path network Live traffic & other road users Struck by pedestrians Med Visitors to be pre informed of speed limit on road Low This to be informed via pre booking information. Any breach of this condition of contract could result in the guests booking being terminated W alking up private lane on core path network Live traffic & other road users Struck by pedestrians Med Visitors to be informed of speed limit on roadwithin welcome pack Low Aim of good communication W alking up private lane on core path network Live traffic & other road users Struck by pedestrians Med Visitors to be informed of walking paths to town centre once arrived at the property and encouraged to use as an alternative to driving Low Limited parking within town to supplement this aim W alking up private lane on core path network Live traffic & other road users Struck by pedestrians Med A condition of booking to be that only one vehicle per booking will be allowed at the property Low Aim is to reduce the overall number of vehicular movements Page 65
Page 327
Appendix 7 - Local Review Body decision letter on planning application 22_01001_PP (23_0007_LRB) Page 66
Page 328
Page 67
Page 329
Page 68
Page 330
Page 69
Page 331
Page 70
Page 332
Page 71
Page 333
Page 72
Page 334
Page 73
Page 335
Page 74
Page 336
Page 75
Page 337
Page 76
Page 338
Page 77
Page 339
Page 78
Page 340
Page 79
Page 341
Page 80
Page 342
Page 81
Page 343
Page 82
Page 344
Page 83
Page 345
Page 84
Page 346
Page 85
Page 347
Page 86
Page 348
Page 87
Page 349
Page 88
Page 350
Appendix 8 - Local Review Body decision letter on planning application 20_01542_PP (21_0005_LRB) Page 89
Page 351
Page 90
Page 352
Page 91
Page 353
Page 92
Page 354
Page 93
Page 355
Page 94
Page 356
Page 95
Page 357
Page 96
Page 358
Page 97
Page 359
Page 98
Page 360
Page 99
Page 361
Page 100
Page 362
Page 101
Page 363
Page 102
Page 364
Page 103
Page 365
Page 104
Page 366
Page 105
Page 367
Page 106
Page 368
Page 107
Page 369
Page 108
Page 370
Page 109
Page 371
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 372
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 24/0007/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 23/01067/PP USE OF LAND FOR THE SITING OF AN ACCOMMODATION POD FOR SHORT TERM LETTING USE GARDEN GROUND OF FERNLEA, POLVINISTER ROAD, OBAN 22 APRIL 2024 Page 111 Agenda Item 3b
Page 373
STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Graham Fielden (“the appellant”). Planning permission 23/01067/PP for the use of land for the siting of an accommodation pod for short term letting use within the garden ground of Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on 24 January 2024. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site for the proposed accommodation pod comprises an area of ground within the rear garden ground of the property which is elevated above the level of the dwellinghouse. The site is relatively well enclosed by established tree and shrub cover which the application shows enhanced by hedge planting to the front of the proposed pod which will ensure that it integrates well within the site and wider landscape where it will not give rise to any privacy or amenity issues with neighbouring properties. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed accommodation pod could be accommodated within the site without any significant adverse visual impact on the site or the wider landscape within which it is proposed, a suitable access regime to serve the proposed development cannot be achieved. The development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, is located outwith the application site boundary and outwith the land in the control of the Applicant. Consequently, it was considered likely that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety and therefore planning permission was refused. STATUTORY BASIS ON WHICH THE APPEAL SHOULD BE DECIDED Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that where, in making any determination under the Planning Act, regard is to be had to the development plan, and all other material planning considerations and 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 development constitutes a material intensification of the vehicular use of a sub-standard private road with no delineation between pedestrian or vehicular use and whether the upgrade of the private access can be achieved on land within the ownership/control of the Applicant. Page 112
Page 374
Whether the dwellinghouse the subject of the review is suitable for bed and breakfast purposes permitted under Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development and Use Classes) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2020. The Report of Handling (Appendix 1) sets out the Council’s full assessment of the application in terms of Development Plan policy and other material considerations. REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING It is not considered that any additional information is required in light of the appellant’s submission. The issues raised were assessed in the Report of Handling which is contained in Appendix 1. 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 any significant public representation, it is not considered that a Hearing is required. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The case from the Planning Service is set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement. The Planning Service has no comment to make on the Appellant’s submission. ADOPTED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2 Since planning permission was refused, ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) has been adopted which, along with ‘National Planning Framework 4’ represent the Development Plan against which planning applications are assessed. However, the policies contained within LDP2 were considered during the processing of the application and therefore, in this instance, the adoption of LDP2 does not change the assessment previously undertaken by Officers, namely that the development the subject of this review would conflict with NPF4 Policy 13 and Policy 37 of LDP2. 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. As set out above, it remains the view of the Planning Service, as set out in the Report of Handling appended to this statement, that the proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, does not form part of the planning application site and is not within the acknowledged legal ownership/control of the Applicant. Furthermore, as set out in the Report of Handling, the dwellinghouse the subject of this review is not, and has not, been used as bed and breakfast accommodation and no details have been advanced as to the suitability of the existing dwellinghouse for such purposes. Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the application for review be dismissed. Page 113
Page 375
APPENDIX 1 Report of Handling Relative to 23/01067/PP 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: 23/01067/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Graham Fielden Proposal: Siting of Accommodation Pod for Short Term Letting Use Site Address: Garden Ground of Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban DECISION ROUTE ☒Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☐Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Siting of accommodation pod for short term letting use (ii) Other specified operations Utilisation of existing vehicular access Connection to public water main Connection to public drainage network (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority Report dated 16/08/23 recommending refusal of the proposed development maintained in an e-mail dated 22/11/23 after reviewing additional information submitted by the Applicant. Page 114
Page 376
Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service (EHS) Memo dated 11/09/23 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions being imposed on the grant of permission to secure a Management Plan for the proposed development and to ensure that external lighting proposed is to an acceptable standard to avoid light nuisance. It should however be noted that a Management Plan has been submitted in support of the proposed development and, should permission be granted, a condition will be imposed to ensure the pod is operated in accordance with the details set out in the Management Plan. Scottish Water Letter dated 06/07/23 advising no objection to the proposed development but providing advisory comments for the Applicant. Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: No relevant planning history. (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 03/08/23. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Mrs Christine McNab, Touchstone, Polvinister Road, Oban, PA34 5TN (25/07/23) Mr John Watson, Glen Esk, Polvinister Road, Oban, PA34 5TN (24/07/23) Mr Douglas Swan, Ronaldsay, Polvinister Road, Oban, PA34 5TN (24/07/23) Mr Freddy Lockhart, The Oaks, Polvinister Road, Oban, PA34 5TN (24/07/23) Oban District Access Panel (17/07/23) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: The access road is a narrow, steep, single track road with blind corners and no passing places or pavements. The access road is used regularly by pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. There are significant concerns regarding the increase in traffic utilising the private road and the impact that this would have on pedestrian safety. Officer Comment: The road safety issues are discussed in more detail in the assessment at Section P below. Page 115
Page 377
Concerns over the construction period of the proposed pod which would cause problems for residents. Officer Comment: This is not a material planning consideration but a civil matter between affected properties. Should this comment relate to noise from the construction period, this would be dealt with by the Council’s EHS. Concerns from noise arising from the proposed accommodation pod. Officer Comment: The application is accompanied by a Management Plan which outlines the operation of the proposed pod. Furthermore, the pod is proposed within the garden ground of the donor dwellinghouse where the Applicant can retain effective control of its operation. Concerns that the proposed pod will overlook neighbouring properties and result in a loss of privacy and amenity currently afforded to them. Officer Comment: It is considered that the proposed pod is a sufficient distance from neighbouring properties to ensure that no significant privacy or amenity conflict would arise. Furthermore the Applicant has taken on board the comments of third parties and provided details of additional screen planting to the front of the proposed pod. The proposal would result in an adverse visual impact on the surrounding residential area. Officer Comment: The pod is proposed within the extensive rear garden of the donor dwellinghouse which benefits from significant tree and shrub cover. Furthermore the Applicant has provided details of additional screen planting to the front of the proposed pod. In this regard it is not considered that the proposed pod would be an overly dominant feature within the site or wider landscape. Whilst the aim of the Oban District Access Panel (ODAP) is to encourage accessible holiday accommodation, it is noted that in this instance, given the constraints of the site levels and the nature of the holiday accommodation, it would be unreasonable, in terms of the Equalities Act, to press for an accessible pod unit. Officer Comment: The comments of the ODAP are noted. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No Page 116
Page 378
(iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☒Yes ☐No (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism ‘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 5 –Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities Page 117
Page 379
LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 10 – Maximising our Resources and Reducing our Consumption LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure ‘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 Landscape and Design SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape Support for Business & Industry: Main Potential Growth Sector: Tourism SG LDP TOUR 1 – Tourist Facilities and Accommodation, including Static and Touring Caravans Bad Neighbour Development SG LDP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development Sustainable Siting and Design SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles Resources and Consumption SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage & Collection Facilities within New Development Transport (Including Core Paths) SG LDP TRAN 2 – Development and Public Transport Accessibility 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. Third Party Representations Consultation Reponses ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) 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 Page 118
Page 380
Notifiable Modifications is a material consideration in the determination of all planning and related applications. Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Has a Sustainability Checklist been submitted: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (O) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No Page 119
Page 381
(P)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: N/A (P)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (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 ☐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 Page 120
Page 382
Planning permission is sought for the siting of an accommodation pod within the garden ground of Fernlea, Polvinister Road, Oban. Fernlea is situated within a small cluster of residential development accessed via a private access track which spurs from the end of the public UC72 Polvinister Road. The site for the proposed accommodation pod comprises an area of ground within the rear garden ground of the property which is elevated above the level of the dwellinghouse. The site is relatively well enclosed by established tree and shrub cover which the application shows enhanced by hedge planting to the front of the proposed pod which will ensure that it integrates well within the site and wider landscape where it will not give rise to any privacy or amenity issues with neighbouring properties. The application shows a dedicated parking area to serve the proposed pod sited adjacent to the parking area currently serving the dwellinghouse. Due to the elevated position of the site, a new footpath and steps is proposed from the parking area to serve the accommodation pod. The proposed accommodation pod comprises a modest, single storey, curved roof structure with finishing materials indicated as horizontal timber cladding. The pod provides open plan living/sleeping accommodation with a separate shower room. The proposed pod has been oriented with its main elevation facing towards the rear of the donor dwellinghouse. Externally the pod opens out onto an area of timber decking with a hot tub positioned to its west elevation. The natural finishing materials of the proposed pod, together with it being well contained within the garden ground of the dwellinghouse, would ensure that it would not result in an incongruous feature within the site or wider landscape and, due to the distance from neighbouring properties, and existing and proposed landscaping, it is not considered that it would give rise to any adverse privacy or amenity issues should permission be granted. Water supply and drainage to serve the proposed accommodation pod are via connection to the public water main which are discussed in more detail in the relevant section below. NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. In this case, given the small scale nature of the development proposed and its alignment with all other relevant policies in NPF4 and those supporting policies in the adopted LDP, it is considered that the development proposed would be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 1 as underpinned by LDP Policies STRAT 1, LDP DM 1 and the adopted Sustainability Checklist and Policies 01 and 04 of pLDP2. NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. It Page 121
Page 383
is noted that the provisions of the Settlement Strategy set out within Policy LDP DM 1 of the LDP promotes sustainable levels of growth by steering significant development to our Main Towns and Settlements, rural growth is supported through identification of Key Rural Settlements and safeguards more sensitive and vulnerable areas within its various countryside designations. It is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with Policy 2 of NPF4 having had due regard to the specifics of the development proposed and to the overarching planning policy strategy outlined within the adopted LDP, notably policies STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP DM 10 and the adopted Sustainability Checklist and Policies 01 and 04 of pLDP2. NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. In the case of the development proposed by this application, it is considered that there are no issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority and whilst no specific proposals for biodiversity improvements have been submitted it is considered that, in the event that planning permission were to be granted, adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection could be delivered by planning condition. Such measures would be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 3 as underpinned by LDP Policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1 and Policy 73 of pLDP2. NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The development proposed by the current planning application is considered appropriate in terms of its type, location and scale such that it will have no unacceptable impact on the natural environment. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve nor is it within an area identified as Wild Land. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 4 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1 and Policy 73 of pLDP2. NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. The development proposed by this application is considered to be on a brownfield site by virtue of the fact that it is within the established residential curtilage of the property representing the sustainable reuse of brownfield land supported by NPF4 Policy 9(a) and underpinned by LDP policies STRAT 1, LDP DM 1 and SG LDP TOUR 1 and Policies 22 and 23 of pLDP2. NPF4 Policy 12 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. The development the subject of this planning application seeks to secure permission for the siting of an accommodation pod for holiday letting use. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it would benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and would be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. Policy 12(b) of NPF4 aligns with LDP Policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 5 and 5(b) and Policy 63 of pLDP2 Page 122
Page 384
and the current development proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. NPF4 Policy 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The application proposes to utilise a private road spurring from the public UC72 Polvinister Road to serve the proposed development. Part (b) of Policy 13 sets out that development proposals will be supported where it can be demonstrated that the transport requirements generated have been considered in line with the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and where appropriate they: i. Provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation; ii. Will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services; iii. Integrate transport modes; iv. Provide low or zero-emission vehicle and cycle charging points in safe and convenient locations, in alignment with building standards; v. Supply safe, secure and convenient cycle parking to meet the needs of users and which is more conveniently located than car parking; vi. Are designed to incorporate safety measures including safe crossings for walking and wheeling and reducing the number and speed of vehicles; vii. Have taken into account, at the earliest stage of design, the transport needs of diverse groups including users with protected characteristics to ensure the safety, ease and needs of all users; and viii. Adequately mitigate any impact on local public access routes. NPF4 Policy 13 is underpinned by LDP Policy LDP 11 which sets out a requirement that an appropriate standard of access is delivered to serve new developments, including off-site highway improvements where appropriate. This requirement is specified in more detail within LDP Policy SG LDP TRAN 4 (2) and Policy 37 of pLDP2 which sets out that further development that utilises an existing private access or private road will only be accepted if: i) The access is capable of commensurate improvements considered by the Roads Authority to be appropriate to the scale and nature of the proposed new development and that takes into account the current access issues (informed by an assessment of useage); AND the applicant can; ii) Secure ownership of the private road or access to allow for commensurate improvements to be made to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority; OR, iii) Demonstrate that an appropriate agreement has been concluded with the existing owner to allow for commensurate improvements to be made to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The current application has been subject to objection from the Roads Authority who advised that the existing private road, which also forms part of the Longsdale Footpath, is narrow with poor geometry, serves numerous properties and has limited passing opportunities. The private road has narrow verges and provides limited step off areas for pedestrians. Page 123
Page 385
The Roads Authority concluded by stating that the private road is unsuitable for further development or intensification of use. The Applicant submitted a response challenging the Roads Authority consultation response which is summarised as follows. “The vast majority of the road length has step-off verges of greater than 1 metre in width. The applicant indicates that he is willing to maintain the verges along its length in order that they do not become overgrown and are accessible to those accessing the track. The access road already forms part of the core path network in the area and regular users of the path already use the current verges to step off the road when vehicles use the route. The proposal should not be considered, as it seems to be, as a new dwelling but as a pod ancillary to the existing dwelling which already uses the un-adopted access road. The proposal will not result in a significant increase in traffic and is no different to any of the properties accessed by the un-adopted road operating a B&B operation from their home or a home having 2 or 3 cars neither of which would be subject to planning or roads department consultation and would have a more substantial impact that that of the submitted proposal”. The Applicant also submitted a statement countering the comments of the Roads Authority on a point by point basis. The Roads Authority considered the further information submitted by the Applicant but confirmed that their recommendation of refusal was their final position on the matter. In the meantime, it was agreed with the Applicant that a decision on the current application would be deferred until such time as a Local Review Body (LRB) decision had been reached on planning application 22/01001/PP which was refused by the Planning Authority for similar reasons to those being advanced by the Roads Authority to the current proposal. Whilst the LRB upheld the appeal and granted planning permission for the pod refused by the Planning Authority under 22/01001/PP, there are material differences in the cases. The property the subject of planning application 22/01001/PP had previously been used as bed and breakfast accommodation (under permitted development rights) with two large en-suite letting bedrooms and it was the intention of the Applicant to install the proposed glamping pod to replace the bed and breakfast use within the main dwellinghouse and thereby resulting in a claimed reduction of potential traffic using the road. This argument was accepted by the LRB panel against the advice of officers. The current applicant is claiming that this sets a material precedent. However, the dwellinghouse the subject of the current application is not, and has not, been used as bed and breakfast accommodation and the Applicant has not advanced details as to the suitability of the existing dwellinghouse for such Page 124
Page 386
purposes. The indication is that this is a four bedroom dwellinghouse currently occupied by the applicant and his wife and three children. It has to be acknowledged that on two previous occasions, and against the advice of officers, the LRB panel has accepted an argument that an existing or proposed lawful incidental use of part of an existing dwellinghouse as bed and breakfast accommodation could be forfeited and replaced by development consisting of self- contained tourism accommodation within a ‘pod’ or ‘pods’ within the garden ground of the property and that this would somehow result in no net increase in vehicle movements associated with the dwellinghouse plus the new ‘pod’ development. Officers continue to question this approach but accept that Members are entitled to arrive at such decisions. However, the argument accepted previously only works if the dwellinghouse is either currently in use as incidental bed and breakfast accommodation or that there is a reasonable prospect that it could be. In the case of the current application it is clear that the dwellinghouse is not being used to provide any incidental bed and breakfast accommodation and neither is it proposed to be. Added to this is the existing occupancy of the dwellinghouse which would appear to leave no spare rooms suitable for bed and breakfast accommodation. Accordingly, in this instance, the proposed development of an additional building to be used for tourism accommodation must, therefore, represent an intensification in the residential occupancy of the site and, therefore, an intensification of the use of the existing constrained access regime. The development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, is located outwith the application site boundary and outwith the land in the control of the Applicant. The proposed development is consequently, in view of the above, considered likely to have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety. The proposal is considered to be contrary to the NPF4 Policy 13(g) as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4(2) and Policy 37 of pLDP2. NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The development the subject of this planning application proposes connection to the public water supply and drainage infrastructure in the control of Scottish Water. In their response to the application Scottish Water raised no objection to the proposed development which would be serviced by the Tullich Water Treatment Works and Oban Waste Water Treatment Works. Policy 18 aligns with LDP Policy LDP DM 11 and Policies 05 and 08 of pLDP2 which seek to ensure suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. As detailed above the development proposes connection to the public water supply to which Scottish Water has not objected to. With regards to the management of Page 125
Page 387
rain and surface water at the site, this could be controlled thorough a condition to secure a suitable sustainable drainage system for the site should permission be granted. The proposal is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 22 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 2 and Policy 61 of pLDP2. NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. Policy 30(a) supports tourism development in locations identified in the LDP with a requirement in Part (b) of this policy for developments to take into account various criteria. A brief statement in support of Policy 30(b) has been submitted with the application as follows: i) The contribution made to the local economy “The proposal shall make a positive contribution to the local economy by providing accommodation for visitors to the area and allow them to enjoy the services offered in the local area”. ii) Compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of the nature and scale of the activity and impacts of increased visitors “The proposal fits in with similar tourism related activities in the general locality”. iii) Impacts on communities, for example by hindering the provision of homes and services for local people “The provision of homes for local people would not be impacted by this development as it does not take an existing home out of the market”. iv) Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas “The applicant intends to provide an electric car charging point on the site which will encourage more users sustainable transport to make use of the accommodation”. v) Accessibility for disabled people “With the elevation of the site wheelchair access would be difficult however careful planning of the access would allow ambulant disabled users to make use of the accommodation”. vi) Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions “ The buildings are formed from sustainable timber sources and contribute to net zero targets. Heating will be from non-carbon-based sources”. Page 126
Page 388
vii) Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment “The site is on the fringes of the natural environment and access to this is encouraged by the applicants. The proposal also looks to work around the natural environment on site and take advantage of existing ecology and landscape”. This small-scale tourism proposal is considered to be consistent with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 30 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 5 and SG LDP TOUR 1 and Policies 22 and 23 of pLDP2. Accordingly, notwithstanding the above assessment that the proposed accommodation pod could be accommodated within the site without any significant adverse visual impact on the site or the wider landscape within which it is proposed, a suitable access regime to serve the proposed development cannot be achieved. The proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, is located outwith the application site boundary and the land in the control of the Applicant as submitted and the proposed development is consequently, in view of the above, considered likely to have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13(f) as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 11 as underpinned by SG LDP TRAN 4(2) and Policy 37 of pLDP2 and it is recommended that planning permission is refused. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be Refused: See reasons for refusal below. (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 Author of Report: Fiona Scott Date: 23/01/24 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 24/01/24 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 127
Page 389
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/01067/PP 1. The proposed development conflicts with NPF4 Policy 13, and Policies LDP 11 and SG LDP TRAN 4 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2015 and Policy 37 of emerging proposed ‘Local Development Plan 2’ as the proposed development would result in the intensification in vehicular use of a sub-standard private road with no delineation between pedestrian or vehicular use. The proposed development constitutes a material intensification of the use of an existing and constrained access regime and would be capable of support only if compliance with various highway safety concerns could be demonstrated through the submission, examination and acceptance of competent detail. The land necessary for the upgrade of the existing private road, if achievable, does not form part of the planning application site and is not within the acknowledged legal ownership/control of the Applicant. Page 128
Page 390
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 23/01067/PP (A) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. ☐Yes ☒No (B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: See reasons for refusal above. Page 129
Page 391
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2005 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No. XYZ123ABC Location Plan Relative to: 24/00007/LRB O 1:1,250 Application Site Page 130