Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 22 April 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 22 April 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 APRIL 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Reeni Kennedy-Boyle Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer Francis Newton, Senior Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Andrew Kain, Dougie Philand and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Paul Kennedy declared a financial interest in respect of the report dealt with at item 4 of this Minute – Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982: Taxi Fare Scale Review. He advised that although he was a Taxi Driver, as no decisions were being taken on the fares at this meeting, he would remain in the meeting for this item. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 March 2026 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 March 2026 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 30 March 2026 was approved as a correct record subject to the following amendments: Rewording of paragraph 5 at page 27 of the Agenda Pack to now read as “Mr Anderson offered further perspective, explaining that when towing gear northwards up the Kilbrannan Sound, sailing yachts had right-of-way over fishing vessels under navigational rules. He stated that fishing vessels could not move eastward due to the presence of hard rock and therefore could not avoid the fish farm site easily when meeting other marine traffic. He also noted that while creelers used static gear in some circumstances, towing gear near the fish farm created substantially more risk than working with static gear.” Change “she” to “he” at the beginning of the 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph at page 28 of the Agenda Pack.
Page 2
4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the local authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area. The fares were last reviewed by Members on 18 December 2024 and took effect on 22 April 2025. The next fare scale will need to come into force in October 2026. Consideration was given to a report seeking approval of the commencement of the next review of taxi fares and other charges. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. to commence the review of fares in order that this could be completed within the 18 months required in terms of the Act; and 2. that the consultation required in terms of the Act would be in writing. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 22 April 2026, submitted) 5. ESB ASSET DEVELOPMENT (UK) LTD: SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR WEST TORRISDALE WIND FARM COMPRISING OF UP TO 9 WIND TURBINES WITH A TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 149.9 METRES WITH A PREDICTED OUTPUT OF UP TO 6 MW PER WIND TURBINE, INSTALLATION OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) OF UP TO 20 MW OF ENERGY STORAGE AND ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE: TORRISDALE (REF: 25/00043/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Section 36 Consultation for West Torrisdale Wind Farm. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government. The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the proposal would have an unacceptable significant landscape and visual impact upon residents and the integrity of the East Kintyre Local Landscape Area contrary to the provisions of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 4d and 11e and Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas and Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study.
Page 3
2. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to resolve SEPA’s holding objection and that the proposal would therefore have an adverse impact on peat contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. In the event that consent was granted it was expected that any conditions recommended by NatureScot, SEPA, RSPB Scotland, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and the Local Biodiversity Officer were attached to the consent. 3. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to resolve Highlands & Islands Airports holding objection and that the proposal would therefore have an adverse aviation impact contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. 4. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant’s Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment had failed to satisfy Ironside Farrar and that the proposal would have an adverse Peat Landslide Hazard contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2. 5. Argyll and Bute Council objected on the grounds that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the requirements of Scottish Forestry and that the proposal would have an adverse impact on Forestry contrary to the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2. 6. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to a condition to secure a written scheme of investigation being attached to any grant of consent. 7. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer on the Revised Outline Habitat Management Plan and the Species Protection Plan being attached to any grant of consent. 8. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to secure a BS4142 assessment for the BESS, limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation (operational turbine noise and amplitude modulation conditions) to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Council’s Noise Consultant. 9. Argyll and Bute had no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • Watercourse crossings should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (56% allowance) flood event. • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development surface water runoff does not exceed the pre-development
Page 4
surface water run-off, the surface water drainage should be in operation prior to construction 10. Argyll and Bute Council had no objection in respect to Access subject to a condition to secure the recommendation of the Access Manager being attached to any grant of consent: • Outdoor Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. 11. Argyll and Bute Council requested that all conditions recommended by other consultees were included in any Consent. NOTE – Should any of the above matters be resolved to the satisfaction of the relevant consultees Argyll and Bute Council’s objection may be treated as withdrawn. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 9 April 2026, submitted) 6. SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC (SSEN TRANSMISSION): PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION ON A NEW SITE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING ARDNADAM STATION: DUNOON ELECTRICITY SUB STATION, HIGH ROAD, SANDBANK (REF: 26/00366/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The site comprises two distinct parts linked by the A885, High Road, which is also included as part of the red line boundary. The western part of the site forms the existing Ardnadam Substation which is served by a vehicular access from the A885. The Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) designates this land as Countryside Zone. The southern part of the site lies to the north of the existing junction with the A885 High Road and Ferry Road. This location is identified for the proposed new substation. The LDP2 designates this land as a Strategic Economic Investment Location for industry, business and storage (Allocated Business Site BI-AL-2/2). These are key locations to promote HIE Priority Sectors to be safeguarded from inappropriate uses. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matters be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission –
Page 5
1. Investigate whether Policy 21 of Local Development Plan 2 – Sites of Archaeological Importance would be of relevance in respect of any future planning application. 2. In respect of future use of the site where the existing substation is, investigate if there has been any contamination of the land. 3. Investigate if any significant peat deposits could impact the Holy Loch. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 April 2026, submitted)