Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 28 March 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 28 March 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 21 March 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 28 MARCH 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: LAND TO THE NORTH OF BALLYHAUGH OUTDOOR CENTRE, ISLE OF COLL, PA78 6TB (REF: 23/0009/LRB) (a) Further information requested from Applicant (Pages 3 - 10) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 11 - 14) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Lynsey Innis, Senior Committee Assistant Tel: 01546 604338 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
To whom it concerns With reference to the email of 15/02/2024 for more information on the site re our appeal for a farmhouse to be built at Ballyhaugh, Isle of Coll, PA78 6TB, I attach a series of photographs of soil sampling from the site (see Hole 3 photo and photo 7) and images of wind speeds for the last three years. One of the photographs (No 8) is of the location identified in the local development plan. As you can see it is very boggy and occupies a dip in the ground, which would require considerable infill. Our reasons for selecting the location are as follows: • close proximity to existing fank/animal pens for sheep/cattle • adjacent to existing (rough) track • out of sight of Project Trust offices (which has panoromic windows) and accompanying wind turbines • close to electricity supplies and main road • the location would blend well in the landscape and not be obtrusive As I'm sure you're aware, NatureScot have confirmed that there are none of the identified plant species for the SSSI in the site area. An archaeologist would be appointed to assist any ground excavation. Just now, we have a hypothermic new-born calf in our kitchen, which we are trying to bring round. It has had to have a two mile trip from the farm in the back of a quad bike trailer, in rain and across a bumpy track, to reach our cottage for continued attention, as there is no farmhouse at Ballyhaugh. My partner recently spent a night in the shed, in a sleeping bag, trying to save another hypothermic calf. Regards Juliet Conway Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 5
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
Please find attached a photo of a calf that we had in our kitchen overnight (taken by quad from Ballyhaugh). Sadly, it died. I was attempting to confirm, in frustration, the essence of our case - a farm with no farmhouse and issues therefore.... Page 9
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
RESPONSE TO SUBMISSION OF FURTHER INFORMATION FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 23/0009/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE FOR SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE TO BE USED IN ASSOCIATION WITH FARMING BUSINESS – PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 22/02078/PPP LAND NORTH OF BALLYHOUGH OUTDOOR CENTRE, ISLE OF COLL Page 11 Agenda Item 3b
Page 12
COMMENT ON SUBMISSION OF FURTHER INFORMATION The appellant has submitted further information in the form of photographs and wind speed data for the application site in an attempt to provide professionally qualified evidence that all other suitable alternative sites for the development proposed within planning application reference 22/02078/PPP have been considered and discounted. Before commenting on the further information submitted, officers must bring the following matter to the attention of the LRB panel: The decision to refuse planning permission for the development the subject of this review was made under the provisions of the then extant Local Development Plan, the National Planning Framework 4, and all other material planning considerations. As Members are aware, since that decision was made a new Local Development Plan, LDP2, has very recently been adopted. Whilst the review panel might be tempted to seek the reassessment of the development against the new adopted LDP2, officers would respectfully advise that the role of the LRB process is fundamentally a review of the original decision. Whilst Members may reasonably seek additional information to clarify the assessment of the original planning application and to assist them in their review of the decision made at that time, they should not seek to reassess and redetermine the development the subject of their review by relying upon material considerations that were not and could not have been available to officers at the time. It is, of course, open to the appellant to seek a reassessment of the development under the new Development Plan by submitting a new planning application. The national and local planning policy comments below, therefore, relate to the original assessment of the development the subject of this review. The development proposed by this planning application is on a greenfield site. NPF4 Policy 9 clearly states that development proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. The site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ as designated within the LDP, where LDP Policies LDP STRAT 1 and LDP DM 1 give encouragement only to small scale development on appropriate infill, rounding-off, redevelopment, and change of use of existing buildings. In ‘exceptional cases’, development in the open countryside up to and including large scale may be supported on appropriate sites if this accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation. In this case, the proposed site for a dwellinghouse would not represent an opportunity for infill, rounding-off, redevelopment, or the change of use of an existing building. With regard to ‘exceptional cases’, development in the open countryside up to and including large scale may occasionally be supported on appropriate sites, provided that the applicant has demonstrated a clear locational/operational requirement for the development and one which cannot be accommodated within the reasonable local vicinity of the proposed development site on a more suitable site within the settlement zone or in the less-sensitive countryside zone (the ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’). The information submitted during the planning application process indicated that the agricultural holding covers an area of approximately 91 hectares. This agricultural holding, under the ownership of the appellant, includes a number of ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’ (COL003 and COL004). The applicant was, on numerous occasions, advised that there are other potential sites within the wider agricultural holding which would avoid the more sensitive ‘Countryside Zone’. This includes the designated ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’, which are sited approximately 40 metres to the south of the proposed development site and approximately Page 12
Page 13
400 metres to the northeast of the proposed development site. The applicant was invited to appraise these sites, and responded by discounting all of the land within the ‘Rural Opportunity Areas’ for the reason that the ‘area would not be suitable for construction due to its exposure to harsh northerly and easterly winter winds’. The further information submitted by the appellant includes data on the wind speed, direction and distribution for the application site, covering the time period of the last three years. The submitted information, whilst not supported by any assisting commentary, appears to show that the prevailing winds predominantly come from the south and southwest. It is noted that the site for the proposed development is located approximately 350 metres from the coastline and would therefore be exposed to wind from the south and west as there are no intervening landform features sited between the coastline and the proposed development site. It is further noted that the ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ (COL003) sited approximately 400 metres to the northeast of the proposed development site, of which approximately 7.4 hectares are sited within the agricultural landholding under the ownership of the appellant, would be sheltered by the intervening rising land which is sited between the ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ and the coastline. Therefore, the conclusion of officers, having studied the submitted supplementary information, is that the development site the subject of the LRB is actually more exposed to prevailing winds than other sites within the ownership of the appellant and that the evidence submitted, whilst intending to offer strength to the appellant’s case, actually supports the refusal of planning permission instead. The further information submitted by the appellant also includes photographs of the ‘area considered for development’ in the Local Development Plan and an image of a hole dug for soil sampling. No further supporting information has been provided in terms of soil analysis or geotechnical data. The image provided of the ‘area considered for development’ in the Local Development Plan is not corroborated with any supporting information showing the location on a map or providing any information on ground conditions. It is noted that this particular ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ (COL004), within the wider agricultural landholding and under the ownership of the appellant, amounts to approximately 7 hectares. Whilst some areas of the land within the ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ may well be unfavourable in terms of ground conditions, the submitted information has not assessed all areas within the ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ and appears only to show those areas which may be unfavourable. This lack of professionally qualified data serves only to support the assessment of the Planning Authority that there has not been a sufficiently robust site options appraisal. It is also apparent that the appellant has failed to appraise the ground conditions of the ‘Rural Opportunity Area’ which is sited approximately 400 metres to the northeast of the proposed development site. The information submitted has failed to appraise the selection of viable sites for the proposed development to a sufficient standard. The submitted information does not unambiguously identify key principles and planning policies to inform the site selection process and does not test any such criteria against the land within the wider agricultural holding such that it is not possible to establish areas of viable potential development sites and areas which must be excluded as unsuitable. The appellant has failed to present supporting information, in the form of professionally qualified evidence and quantitative evaluation, to robustly appraise viable sites for the proposed development such that it is not possible to discount other more suitable sites for development which are in close vicinity of the application site and are within the ownership of the appellant. It is reiterated that whilst the Planning Authority is keen to support local businesses and the reasonable aspirations of individuals, it is concluded that in this case, the case put forward by the appellant does not meet the ‘exceptional case’ criteria as it has not been demonstrated, to Page 13
Page 14
an appropriate standard, that there is a necessity for the proposed development to be located in this exact location. The information provided does not satisfactorily discount other potential development sites that are within close proximity to the proposed development site and are within the wider agricultural landholding of the appellant. In this regard, the appellant has failed to demonstrate an ‘exceptional case’ where it must be substantiated that there is a locational requirement for the proposed development to be tied to the exact location. The Development Management Zones support the Local Development Plan settlement strategy. Permitting development of this type within this safeguarded location without a sufficiently demonstrated ‘exceptional case’ would compromise the purpose of the ‘Countryside Zone’ designation which is there to safeguard sensitive and vulnerable areas from inappropriate development, such as that proposed within this application. Page 14