Agenda reports pack

Argyll and Bute Council · 11 March 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 11 March 2024 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

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
4 March 2024 
NOTICE OF MEETING 
A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT
TEAMS on MONDAY, 11 MARCH 2024 at 11:30 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: 24/0002/LRB - ROWAN BRAE,
GLENCRUITTEN, OBAN (REF: 23/00825/PPP) 
(a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 34)  
(b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 35 - 54) 
Argyll and Bute Local Review Body 
Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour
Councillor Jan Brown   
Contact: Hazel MacInnes Tel: 01546 604269
Public Document Pack

Page 2

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 3

ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL
WWW.ARGYLL-BUTE.GOV.UK/** 
NOTICE OF REVIEW 
Notice of Request for Review under Section 43(a)8
of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town and
Country Planning (Schemes of Delegation and Local Review Procedure)
(Scotland) Regulations 2013 
Important – Please read the notes on how to complete this form and use
Block Capitals.  Further information is available on the Council’s Website. 
You should, if you wish, seek advice from a Professional Advisor on how to
complete this form. 
(3)  Do you wish correspondence to be sent to you       or your agent 
(4)  (a)  Reference Number of Planning Application 
(b)  Date of Submission 
(c)  Date of Decision Notice (if applicable) 
(5)  Address of Appeal Property 
(1)  APPLICANT FOR REVIEW 
Name 
Address 
Postcode 
Tel. No. 
Email   
(2)  AGENT (if any) 
Name 
Address 
Postcode 
Tel. No. 
Email
MALCOLM SLOSS
ROWAN BRAE
GLENCRUITTEN
OBAN
PA34 4QB 
IAIN A MACDONALD
INVERESREGAN
ARDCHATTAN
OBAN
PA37 1RG
07766394079 
iain@inveresregan.co.uk
OFFICIAL USE
Validated
18/01/24 HM 
Date Received
16/01/24
Ref:
AB1 
X
23/00825/PPP
16 JANUARY 2024 
ROWANBRAE
GLENCRUITTEN
OBAN
PA34 4QB
Page 3 Agenda Item 3a

Page 4

(6)  Description of Proposal 
(7)   
SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF A
DWELLING HOUSE
Please set out the detailed reasons for requesting the review:- 
The applicant disagrees with planning authority’s definition of cluster
development, in relation to the existing built environs surrounding the
application site. 
A detailed supporting statement is attached to this document. 
X
Page 4

Page 5

(8)  If the Local Review Body determines that it requires further information on
“specified matters” please indicate which of the following procedure you would
prefer to provide such information :- 
(a) Dealt with by written submission 
(b) Dealt with by Local Hearing 
(c) Dealt with by written submission and site inspection 
(d) Dealt with by local hearing and site inspection
NB It is a matter solely for the Local Review Body to determine if further information
is required and, if so, how it should be obtained.
(9)  Please list in the schedule all documentation submitted as part of the        
application for review ensuring that each document corresponds to the   
numbering in the sections below:- 
Schedule of documents submitted with Notice of Review (Note: 3 paper
copies of each of the documents referred to in the schedule below
must be attached): 
No.  Detail
1 Combined written supporting statement with maps etc attached.
2 BDS 524 101 CLUSTERS IN SPACE  
3 BDS 524 100 BIRDS EYE VIEW WITH CLUSTERS
4 REFUSED PLANS
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
If insufficient space please continue on a separate page.  Is this is
attached?  (Please tick to confirm) 
X
Page 5

Page 6

Submitted by
(Please Sign)       Dated 
Important Notes for Guidance 
1. All matters which the applicant intends to raise in the review must
be set out in or accompany this Notice of Review
2. All documents, materials and evidence which the applicant
intends to rely on in the Review must accompany the Notice of
Review UNLESS further information is required under Regulation
15 or by authority of the Hearing Session Rules.
3. Guidance on the procedures can be found on the Council’s
website – www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/
4. If in doubt how to proceed please contact 01546 604392/604269 or
email localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 
5. Once completed this form can be either emailed to
localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk or returned by post to
Committee Services (Local Review Board), Kilmory,
Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT
6. You will receive an acknowledgement of this form, usually by
electronic mail (if applicable), within 14 days of the receipt of your
form and supporting documentation. 
If you have any queries relating to the completion of this form please contact 
Committee Services on 01546 604392/604269 or email
localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 
For official use only 
Date form issued 
Issued by (please sign) 
IAIN A MACDOANLD 16 January 2024
Page 6

Page 7

1 
WRITTEN STATEMENT
FOR NOTICE OF
REVIEW 
REFUSAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION
23/00825/PPP APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION
OF A DWELLINGHOUSE AT LAND NORTH OF ROWAN
BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN, OBAN, ARGYLL PA34 4QB 
building design studio 
inveresregan house ardchattan argyll  PA37 1RG 
iain@inveresregan.co.uk 
07766394079 
8th January 2024 
Revision – 
Page 7

Page 8

2 
Introduction
The applicant Mr Malcolm Sloss submitted the planning application 23/00825/PPP on 25th April 2023
which was assessed under delegated authority and after summary assessment and determination of
material considerations was refused on 17th October 2023.
The reason for refusal 
Summary justification statement for refusal of planning permission in principle 
The proposal is considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 9 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP
STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP HOU 1 and Policy 02 of pLDP2, and there are no
other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to
grant planning permission in this instance as a departure to the Development Plan having regard
to s25 of the Act.
The proposed development on this greenfield site conflicts with National Planning Policy NPF4
Policy 9. NPF4 Policy 9 (b) states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the
site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported in the LDP.
Whilst the site is within a Rural Opportunity Area, Policy DM1 support is qualified to ‘appropriate
sites’. Furthermore, this support is subject to on-going capacity evaluation of the Rural Opportunity
Area.
The site is elevated above the level of the existing cluster of development to the south where it is
considered that the existing stables on the lower ground form the natural boundary for this small
cluster of development. In this case, it is considered that the proposal would harmfully extend the
existing cluster of development and unacceptably harm the rural landscape character and
appearance of the area.
Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to NPF4 policies 9, 14 and
17, Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP HOU 1
It is our contention that the grounds for refusal are based on a single issue surrounding the
definition of “appropriate site” in relation to an exact meaning of “cluster developments” in a rural
context. This single issue is the single reason for NPF4 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17, failing in compliance,
and that failure by association, the single reason LDP STRAT1, LDP DM1, LDP3, LDP 9, SGLDP ENV14
and SG LDP HOU 1 are considered to be non-compliant.
Conversely, In terms of NPF4 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 18 and 22, the proposed development are wholly
compliant, and underpinned by LDP DM 1 LDP3, SG LDP ENV 1  G LDP ENV1 SG LDP ENV4 LDP2,
LDP 10, SG LDP SRV 1, SG LDP SERV 5 (b) and Pol  63 of p, SG LDP SERV 6, Pol 58, 59, & 61 LDP2,
LDP LDP11, SG LDP TRAN 2 SG LDP TRAN4 SG LDP TRAN6 (37, 39, 40) OF pLDP2
The refusal is underpinned by the following statement at NPF4 Policy Summary of the handling
report. 
Page 8

Page 9

3 
However, whilst the site is within a ROA where the LDP gives general support to small-scale housing
development, Policy DM1 support is qualified to ‘appropriate sites’. Furthermore, this support is
subject to on-going capacity evaluation of the ROA. In this case, it is considered the proposal would
unacceptably erode the rural character of the landscape and introduce a more suburban character
to the landscape, leading to possible coalescence and linear development. It is noted that
permission in principle is only sought at this stage. However, it is not considered that matters of
detailed design and siting would prevent or sufficiently mitigate this harm. 
The site is elevated above the level of the existing cluster of development to the south where it is
considered that the existing stables on the lower ground form the natural boundary for the small
cluster of development to the south, an area which has been subject of development pressure in
the last few years. It is considered that extending the development beyond the stables would
extend the existing cluster of development in an inappropriate manner to the detriment of the
wider landscape, resulting in linear development and eroding the rural character of the area. This
resultant material harm to landscape, local character and appearance would be appreciable along
the public road to the immediate east of the site. 
MAP 1 
Page 9

Page 10

4 
1.0 PLANNING POLICY: 
From the Local Development Plan Proposals Map, the site can be seen to be located within a Rural
opportunity  Area. The proposed use of the site is residential. Key Planning Policies include: 
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 14 – Design, Quality and Place
NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes
NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First
NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management 
‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 
LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development
LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones
LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment
LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and
Design
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 SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and
the Environment 
Landscape and Design 
SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape   
Page 10

Page 11

5 
General Housing Development
SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision
Sustainable Siting and Design
SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles
Resources and Consumption
SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants & Wastewater Systems SG LDP SERV 2 –
Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS
SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage & Collection Facilities within New Development
SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation
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
SG LDP TRAN 7 – Safeguarding of Airports
(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.
• 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 Notifiable
Modifications is a material consideration in the determination of all planning and related
applications. 
Spatial and Settlement Strategy 
Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development 
High Quality Places 
Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting
Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development  
Connected Places 
Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road
Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision
Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes 
Sustainable Communities 
Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the
Environment
Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 –
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)
Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management
Page 11

Page 12

6 
High Quality Environment 
Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity 
GENERAL
In terms of the site environment, we are aware of no issues or impact upon the natural, human
and built environment. 
The house will pay respectful attention to the local vernacular, sitting as low in its natural landscape
context as possible and will be positioned and oriented so as to retain the loose linear nature of
the contoured ground levels of the existing neighbouring dwellinghouses whilst at the same time
optimising amenity in terms of both views, natural light and privacy to neighbouring buildings.
The proposed building will be designed with resource efficiency/renewability and eco-
sustainability foremost in mind in terms of construction, insulation, glazing and heating source/s. 
NPF4 PRINCIPALS 
Healthy: The location of this plot is directly off a public road and so benefits from the passive security
of being visible for passers-by thus supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety, and generally
a feeling of security and safety.
Pleasant: The new dwelling will be simply proportioned and complemented with a limited natural
material palette that offer the range of materials sought in assessing the housing character of the
area which support attractive natural and built spaces and contemporary in design. 
Connected: This rural location has limited but adequate public transport connectivity, locally and
nationally. The public road from forma part of the Nationals cycleways system. 
Distinctive: A contemporary design of the proposed dwelling will complement the adjoining older
buildings and sit comfortably with other newly constructed additions of a more contemporary
nature.
Sustainable: The dwelling will achieve the now demanding standards required by Building
Standards and possibly exceed these. It will have very high levels of insulation, efficiently glazed
doors and windows, using renewable energy where practicable. 
Adaptable: The interior layout will be well proportioned with due attention given to inclusive design
requirements and a disabled compliant WC on the ground floor. The dwelling would have a level
access threshold, referencing ‘Design for Life’ guidelines. The spaces are simple and large enough
to respond to any future changes by the owners. 
Biodiversity. The planting and boundary treatments will reflect back land theme of masonry and
brickwork boundary walls. The garden will generally be laid to lawn but will incorporate an area of
natural lawn for foraging birds, insects etc and will have hedgehog holes in fences and boundaries.
It will have a log pile, as the dwelling will have a wood burner, great for insects, a compost bin and
lots of hiding places so bugs will not be disturbed. 
Page 12

Page 13

7 
NPF4 SPECIFICS
The handling report offers the following summary, which we have commented on in red to
support our statement.
Development along the Connel Back Road generally comprises small clusters of
development, some set alongside the public road and others set back, with these clusters
broken up with areas of open ground. 
The site the subject of the application is a relatively flat area of ground elevated above the
Barran-Connel public road which runs along the east of the site. The site rises up to the rear
of the site to the north and the northwest. There are two stable buildings to the south of
the site beyond which is an agricultural building and a small cluster of residential
development associated with the junction of the public road leading to Oban.
The site is above the public road but only directly east of its position. In terms of the main
body of existing built development the site is actually at the same level as the level at the
crossroad junction, to Connel, Oban Kilmore. The difference in level between the
applicant’s house Rowanbrae and the proposed site ground level is almost exactly the
same as the difference in level between the applicant’s house and the road junction and
houses thereon nearby. 
It is considered that the stables effectively terminate the extent of built development at this
location with the development of the site with a dwellinghouse extending the existing built
development at this location in an unacceptable manner, resulting in the loss of open space
between the existing cluster of development to the south and the small pairing of
dwellinghouses to the north. 
If the bare clusters shown below are referred to, it is difficult to agree with the statement
“It is considered that the stables effectively terminate the extent of built development at
this location”, and “resulting in loss of open space” when in fact the clusters formed and
resulting open space are so random in nature making it very difficult to identify which is
which in terms of open space and cluster groups. The proposed site location is sufficiently
far away from the small cluster north of the site to ensure adequate open space is
retained to between the two sets of built development. The proposed site is circled in
blue below. It would be much more consistent with a designation of “INFILL AND
ROUNDING OFF”. 
Page 13

Page 14

8 
MAP 2 POSITION OF CLUSTERS IN SPACE AND WITHOUT REFERENCE 
An existing vehicular access spurring from the UC19 Barran – Connel public road is to be
utilised to serve the proposed development with drainage and water supply via private
arrangements due to the lack of public infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. 
Page 14

Page 15

9 
VIEW FROM CROSS  ROAD 
Page 15

Page 16

10 
NPF4 SPECIFICS (continued)
The handling report offers the following assessment, which we have commented on in red to
support our statement. 
NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and
Adaption
Assumed compliant. 
NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption.
Assumed compliant. 
NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity
Assumed compliant. 
NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places
Assumed compliant. 
NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions
relevant to Greenfield Sites)
The proposal is consistent with this policy in terms of development of in-bye or low-quality
agricultural land which is of little merit for any other purpose. 
The failure of this proposal to comply is singularly down to the false premise that the area is not an
“appropriate site” and that an adverse impact will be created due to the un-evidenced assumption
that the open space will be lost and it is asserted that “material harm to the landscape, local
character and appearance would be appreciable along the pubic road to the east of the site. 
The site is in fact not visible from the public road., to use the word harm (to inflict injury) rather
overstretches the reality. 
Page 16

Page 17

11 
NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste
Assumed compliant. 
NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport
Assumed compliant. 
Liveable Places
NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place
This policy broadly supports the proposals but qualifies and negates that support by referring back
to the “harmful” aspects referred to in NPF$ Policy 9 noted above. 
NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods
This policy supports the development notwithstanding the default cross referencing to Policy 9 and
Polciy 14 above.
However, as detailed at NPF4 Policies 9 and 14 above, the presumption in favour of development in
ROAs is subject to on-going capacity evaluation of the ROA to avoid overdevelopment which could
erode the rural character of the landscape and introduce a more suburban character to the
landscape with development between existing dwellinghouses leading to possible coalescence and
linear development.
In this instance, the proposed development site would fail to respect the existing established
settlement pattern resulting in an adverse environmental impact and therefore would fail to meet
the requirements of NPF4 Policy 15 as underpinned by the settlement strategy policies contained
within LDP Policies LDP DM 1, LDP 8, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP HOU 1.
It is interesting to note, and as shown on the 17 dwelling cluster shown at MAP 2 above the
capacity evaluation of the ROA has arguably missed the boat if you look at the time frame of
approval of each of the individual dwellings spiraling outwards from the three way junction at
Barranriach farm, which clearly shows existing development coalescing into linear development 
heading north towards Connel, the idea that these individual groups can be considered clusters
dispelled if you look at the equal spacing between most of them 
If you accept that argument then policy 15 becomes complaint. 
NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes;
seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and
sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing
needs.
This policy supports the development notwithstanding the default cross referencing to Policy 9 and
Policy 14 above, and the inclusion of “right location” as a material consideration for policy 16
making it contrary to its aims. 
NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes
seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and
sustainable rural homes in the right locations.
This policy supports the development notwithstanding the default cross referencing to
Policy 9 and Policy 14 above, and the inclusion of “right location” as a material
consideration for policy 17 making it contrary to its aims. 
Page 17

Page 18

12 
NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First
Assumed compliant. 
NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management
Whilst it has been demonstrated that appropriate servicing and infrastructure arrangements can be
provided to serve the proposed development, the principle of the development of the site with a
dwellinghouse is not considered to be acceptable as it would extend the existing built development
in an unacceptable manner, resulting in the loss of important spacing between development
clusters and leading to possible coalescence and linear development.
This flood risk and water management policy fails the test because of matters connected to visual
impact, which is illogical nonscientific and a construction used to amplify the overall refusal. It
entirely passes this policy otherwise. 
CONCLUSION
It is our contention that the grounds for refusal are based on a single issue surrounding the
definition of “appropriate site” in relation to an exact meaning of “cluster developments” in a rural
context. 
It is also considered the language used including words like “harmful” and “unacceptable impacts”
the determining of the extents of acceptable built development without appropriate justification
and the creation of nonphysical barriers without  understandable and effective reasoning.   
This single issue is the single reason for NPF4 9, 14, 15, 16 and 17, failing in compliance, and that
failure by association, the single reason LDP STRAT1, LDP DM1, LDP3, LDP 9, SGLDP ENV14 and SG
LDP HOU 1 are considered to be non-compliant. 
A site visit would enable the Local Review Board to make an independent assessment of whether
or not to agree with the planning authority’s assessment. 
Iain A MacDonald 10 January 2024 
DRONE IMAGING OF SURROUNDINGS
Page 18

Page 19

13 
Page 19

Page 20

14 
Page 20

Page 21

15 
Page 21

Page 22

16 
Page 22

Page 23

17 
Page 23

Page 24

18 
Page 24

Page 25

19 
Page 25

Page 26

20 
Page 26

Page 27

21 
Page 27

Page 28

Barranrioch
Track
Farm
Barranrioch
Track
Farm
Barran
(dis)
BarranNew
BARN
STABLES
I
C
IC
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
S
W
d
r
a
i
n
I
C
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
f
o
u
l
d
r
a
i
n
B
I
G
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
c
o
a
t
s
l
e
v
e
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
f
.
s
.
s
t
o
v
e
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
f
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
o
v
e
n
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
IC
car parking and du access
public
unclassified
road
overflow
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
D
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
L
L
L
O
U
N
G
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
/
S
T
U
D
Y
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
S
H
O
W
E
R
R
O
O
M
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
O
O
M
H
W
C
top
up
9980m
m
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
roadside
ditch
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
300m
m
dia
culvert hatched
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
61.145 FFL.
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
borehole
ROWAN BRAE
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
1
2 3
4
5 6
7
8
9
11
10
13
12
14
16
15
17
786759a
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
7a
4a
Inveresregan House
Ardchattan
Argyll
PA37 1RG
07766394079
inveresregan8@gmail.com
Date
Project
Scale
Sheet Size
Drawing Number
Drawing title
CLUSTERS
Project Title
Client
Mr Malcolm Sloss
PROPOSED SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT
ROWAN BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN
ARGYLL, PA34 4QB
Drawing Number
BUILDING DESIGN STUDIO
A1
LRB
101BDS524
15.01.2024
-
LOCATION PLAN 1 : 1250
Page 28

Page 29

Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barran an Fhraoich
FB
38m
Barranrioch
Track
Collects
Track
Farm
Collects
New
Barran
Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barran an Fhraoich
FB
38m
Barranrioch
Track
Collects
Track
Farm
Collects
New
Barran
APPLICATION 07/01473/REM
COMPLETED.
Barran
APPLICATION SITE
82m
74m
78m
(dis)
76m Quarry
59m
BarranNew 65m
Track
Pond
Track
BARN
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
existing passing place
I
C
IC
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
S
W
d
r
a
i
n
I
C
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
f
o
u
l
d
r
a
i
n
B
I
G
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
c
o
a
t
s
l
e
v
e
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
f
.
s
.
s
t
o
v
e
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
ff
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
o
v
e
n
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
IC
car parking and du access
public
unclassified
road
private water supply pipe
Klargester Beta + septic tank 4160 litre capacity
overflow
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
D
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
L
L
L
O
U
N
G
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
/
S
T
U
D
Y
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
S
H
O
W
E
R
R
O
O
M
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
O
O
M
2200 2000
H
W
C
top
up
9980
9980m
m
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
SEPA discharge consent Ref : CAR/R/1157926
roadside
ditch
roadside
ditch
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
300m
m
dia
culvert hatched
FBFB
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
52.230
60.424
59.835
59.397
59.296
58.092
51.886
49.008
47.374 47.228
48.197
48.281
47.820
46.726
49.856
49.832
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.5
56.0
56.5
57.0
57.5
59.0
59.5
60.0
43.5 43.544.044.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.547.047.5
48.048.549.049.5
50.050.5
51.0
51.552.0
52.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.558.058.559.059.5
46.5
47.047.548.048.549.049.550.050.551.051.552.052.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.5
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
43.043.043.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
43.5
43.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.0
45.5
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
1
7
2
0
3
.
4
3
8
8466.996
15715.104
10938.435
61.145 FFL.
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
borehole
PLOT 1
ROWAN BRAE EXISTING ACCESS UTILISED
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
1
1
1
2 3
4
5 6
7
8
9
11
10
13
12
14
16
15
17
176201
121969
170295
62923
70976
95864
103810
78159
69063 73328
78675
101055
198517
119830
127749
171532 180117
177350
107143
90970
109685
1 100m over datum
2. 85 m over datum
3 75 m over datum
4. 60 m over datum
5 60 m over datum
6 58 m over datum
7 60 m over datum
8. 59 m over datum
9. 53 m over datum
10. 48 m over datum
11. 62 m over datum
12. 57 m over datum
13. 68 m over datum
14. 46 m over datum
15. 38 m over datum
16. 52 m over datum
17. 43m over datum
9a
Inveresregan House
Ardchattan
Argyll
PA37 1RG
07766394079
inveresregan8@gmail.com
Date
Project
Scale
Sheet Size
Drawing Number
Drawing title
LOCATION AND SITE  PLAN
Project Title
Client
Mr Malcolm Sloss
PROPOSED SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT
ROWAN BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN
ARGYLL, PA34 4QB
Drawing Number
BUILDING DESIGN STUDIO
A1
LRB
100BDS524
15.01.2024
D
LOCATION PLAN 1 : 1250
Page 29

Page 30

APPLICATION SITE
BARN
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
car parking and du access
public unclassified road
private water supply pipe
Klargester Beta + septic tank 4160 litre capacity
overflow
KITCHEN
DINING
HALL
LO
UNG
E
BEDRO
O
M
/STUDY
VESTIBULE
SHO
W
ER
RO
O
M
UTILITY
RO
O
M
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
HW
C
top
up
9
9
8
0
9980mm
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
SEPA discharge consent Ref : CAR/R/1157926
roadside ditch
roadside ditch
graded banking at 45 deg max
graded banking at 45 deg max
300mm
dia culvert hatched
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
52.230
60.424
59.835
59.397
59.296
58.092
51.886
49.008
47.374 47.228
48.197
48.281
47.820
46.726
49.856
49.832
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.5
56.0
56.5
57.0
57.5
59.0
59.5
60.0
43.5 43.544.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.047.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.556.056.5
57.057.558.058.559.059.5
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.549.049.550.050.551.051.552.052.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.5
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
43.043.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
43.5
43.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.0
45.5
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
1
7
2
0
3
.
4
3
8
8466.996
15715.104
10938.435
PLOT 1
ROWAN BRAE EXISTING ACCESS UTILISED
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barranrioch
Track
Farm
New
Barran
Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barranrioch
Track
Farm
New
Barran
APPLICATION 07/01473/REM
COMPLETED.
Barran
APPLICATION SITE
74m
78m
(dis)
76m Quarry
59m
BarranNew 65m
Track
Pond
Track
BARN
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
existing passing place
I
C
IC
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
S
W
d
r
a
i
n
I
C
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
f
o
u
l
d
r
a
i
n
B
I
G
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
c
o
a
t
s
l
e
v
e
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
f
.
s
.
s
t
o
v
e
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
f
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
o
v
e
n
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
IC
car parking and du access
public
unclassified
road
private water supply pipe
Klargester Beta + septic tank 4160 litre capacity
overflow
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
D
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
L
L
L
O
U
N
G
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
/
S
T
U
D
Y
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
S
H
O
W
E
R
R
O
O
M
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
O
O
M
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
H
W
C
top
up
9
9
8
0
9980m
m
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
SEPA discharge consent Ref : CAR/R/1157926
roadside
ditch
roadside
ditch
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
300m
m
dia
culvert hatched
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
52.230
60.424
59.835
59.397
59.296
58.092
51.886
49.008
47.374 47.228
48.197
48.281
47.820
46.726
49.856
49.832
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.5
56.0
56.5
57.0
57.5
59.0
59.5
60.0
43.5 43.544.044.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.547.047.5
48.048.549.049.550.050.5
51.051.5
52.0
52.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.558.058.559.059.5
46.5
47.047.548.048.549.049.550.050.551.051.552.052.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.5
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
43.043.043.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
43.5
43.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.0
45.5
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
1
7
2
0
3
.
4
3
8
8466.996
15715.104
10938.435
61.145 FFL.
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
borehole
PLOT 1
ROWAN BRAE EXISTING ACCESS UTILISED
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
© Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 1000+99+5. For full terms and conditions please visit www.ordnancesurveyleisure.co.uk 400 m
1000 ft
29
30
NM
1 of 1
APPLICATION SITE
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
5
7
.
5
5
8
.
0
5
8
.
5
5
9
.
0
5
9
.
5
5
2
.
5
5
3
.
0
5
3
.
5
5
4
.
0
5
4
.
5
5
5
.
0
5
5
.
5
5
6
.
0
5
6
.
5
5
7
.
0
5
7
.
5
5
0
.
5
5
1
.
0
5
1
.
5
5
2
.
0
5
2
.
5
5
3
.
0
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
APPLICATION SITE
Inveresregan House
Ardchattan
Argyll
PA37 1RG
07766394079
inveresregan8@gmail.com
Date
Project
Scale
Sheet Size
Drawing Number
Drawing title
LOCATION AND SITE  PLAN
Project Title
Client
Mr Malcolm Sloss
PROPOSED SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT
ROWAN BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN
ARGYLL, PA34 4QB
Drawing Number
BUILDING DESIGN STUDIO
A1
PPP
001BDS524
10.05.2023
B
LOCATION PLAN 1 : 1250 SITE  PLAN 1 : 500
LOCATION PLAN 2 SCALE 1 : 10000
Argyll and Bute Council
REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY
Relative to Application No:
23/00825/PPP
Fergus Murray
Head of Development and Economic Growth
17 October 2023
Page 30

Page 31

Barranrioch
Track
Farm
Barranrioch
Track
Farm
Barran
(dis)
BarranNew
BARN
STABLES
I
C
IC
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
S
W
d
r
a
i
n
I
C
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
f
o
u
l
d
r
a
i
n
B
I
G
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
c
o
a
t
s
l
e
v
e
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
f
.
s
.
s
t
o
v
e
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
f
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
o
v
e
n
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
IC
car parking and du access
public
unclassified
road
overflow
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
D
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
L
L
L
O
U
N
G
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
/
S
T
U
D
Y
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
S
H
O
W
E
R
R
O
O
M
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
O
O
M
H
W
C
top
up
9980m
m
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
roadside
ditch
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
300m
m
dia
culvert hatched
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
61.145 FFL.
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
borehole
ROWAN BRAE
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
1
2 3
4
5 6
7
8
9
11
10
13
12
14
16
15
17
786759a
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
7a
4a
Inveresregan House
Ardchattan
Argyll
PA37 1RG
07766394079
inveresregan8@gmail.com
Date
Project
Scale
Sheet Size
Drawing Number
Drawing title
CLUSTERS
Project Title
Client
Mr Malcolm Sloss
PROPOSED SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT
ROWAN BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN
ARGYLL, PA34 4QB
Drawing Number
BUILDING DESIGN STUDIO
A1
LRB
101BDS524
15.01.2024
-
LOCATION PLAN 1 : 1250
Page 31

Page 32

Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barran an Fhraoich
FB
38m
Barranrioch
Track
Collects
Track
Farm
Collects
New
Barran
Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barran an Fhraoich
FB
38m
Barranrioch
Track
Collects
Track
Farm
Collects
New
Barran
APPLICATION 07/01473/REM
COMPLETED.
Barran
APPLICATION SITE
82m
74m
78m
(dis)
76m Quarry
59m
BarranNew 65m
Track
Pond
Track
BARN
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
existing passing place
I
C
IC
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
S
W
d
r
a
i
n
I
C
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
f
o
u
l
d
r
a
i
n
B
I
G
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
c
o
a
t
s
l
e
v
e
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
f
.
s
.
s
t
o
v
e
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
ff
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
o
v
e
n
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
IC
car parking and du access
public
unclassified
road
private water supply pipe
Klargester Beta + septic tank 4160 litre capacity
overflow
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
D
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
L
L
L
O
U
N
G
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
/
S
T
U
D
Y
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
S
H
O
W
E
R
R
O
O
M
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
O
O
M
2200 2000
H
W
C
top
up
9980
9980m
m
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
SEPA discharge consent Ref : CAR/R/1157926
roadside
ditch
roadside
ditch
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
300m
m
dia
culvert hatched
FBFB
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
52.230
60.424
59.835
59.397
59.296
58.092
51.886
49.008
47.374 47.228
48.197
48.281
47.820
46.726
49.856
49.832
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.5
56.0
56.5
57.0
57.5
59.0
59.5
60.0
43.5 43.544.044.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.547.047.5
48.048.549.049.5
50.050.5
51.0
51.552.0
52.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.558.058.559.059.5
46.5
47.047.548.048.549.049.550.050.551.051.552.052.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.5
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
43.043.043.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
43.5
43.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.0
45.5
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
1
7
2
0
3
.
4
3
8
8466.996
15715.104
10938.435
61.145 FFL.
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
borehole
PLOT 1
ROWAN BRAE EXISTING ACCESS UTILISED
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
1
1
1
2 3
4
5 6
7
8
9
11
10
13
12
14
16
15
17
176201
121969
170295
62923
70976
95864
103810
78159
69063 73328
78675
101055
198517
119830
127749
171532 180117
177350
107143
90970
109685
1 100m over datum
2. 85 m over datum
3 75 m over datum
4. 60 m over datum
5 60 m over datum
6 58 m over datum
7 60 m over datum
8. 59 m over datum
9. 53 m over datum
10. 48 m over datum
11. 62 m over datum
12. 57 m over datum
13. 68 m over datum
14. 46 m over datum
15. 38 m over datum
16. 52 m over datum
17. 43m over datum
9a
Inveresregan House
Ardchattan
Argyll
PA37 1RG
07766394079
inveresregan8@gmail.com
Date
Project
Scale
Sheet Size
Drawing Number
Drawing title
LOCATION AND SITE  PLAN
Project Title
Client
Mr Malcolm Sloss
PROPOSED SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT
ROWAN BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN
ARGYLL, PA34 4QB
Drawing Number
BUILDING DESIGN STUDIO
A1
LRB
100BDS524
15.01.2024
D
LOCATION PLAN 1 : 1250
Page 32

Page 33

APPLICATION SITE
BARN
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
car parking and du access
public unclassified road
private water supply pipe
Klargester Beta + septic tank 4160 litre capacity
overflow
KITCHEN
DINING
HALL
LO
UNG
E
BEDRO
O
M
/STUDY
VESTIBULE
SHO
W
ER
RO
O
M
UTILITY
RO
O
M
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
HW
C
top
up
9
9
8
0
9980mm
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
SEPA discharge consent Ref : CAR/R/1157926
roadside ditch
roadside ditch
graded banking at 45 deg max
graded banking at 45 deg max
300mm
dia culvert hatched
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
52.230
60.424
59.835
59.397
59.296
58.092
51.886
49.008
47.374 47.228
48.197
48.281
47.820
46.726
49.856
49.832
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.5
56.0
56.5
57.0
57.5
59.0
59.5
60.0
43.5 43.544.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.047.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.556.056.5
57.057.558.058.559.059.5
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.549.049.550.050.551.051.552.052.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.5
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
43.043.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
43.5
43.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.0
45.5
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
1
7
2
0
3
.
4
3
8
8466.996
15715.104
10938.435
PLOT 1
ROWAN BRAE EXISTING ACCESS UTILISED
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barranrioch
Track
Farm
New
Barran
Track
Path (um)
Track
Pond
FB
Barranrioch
Track
Farm
New
Barran
APPLICATION 07/01473/REM
COMPLETED.
Barran
APPLICATION SITE
74m
78m
(dis)
76m Quarry
59m
BarranNew 65m
Track
Pond
Track
BARN
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
existing passing place
I
C
IC
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
S
W
d
r
a
i
n
I
C
1
0
0
m
m
d
i
a
f
o
u
l
d
r
a
i
n
B
I
G
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
c
o
a
t
s
l
e
v
e
l
a
c
c
e
s
s
m
f
.
s
.
s
t
o
v
e
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
f
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
o
v
e
n
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
IC
car parking and du access
public
unclassified
road
private water supply pipe
Klargester Beta + septic tank 4160 litre capacity
overflow
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
D
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
L
L
L
O
U
N
G
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
/
S
T
U
D
Y
V
E
S
T
I
B
U
L
E
S
H
O
W
E
R
R
O
O
M
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
R
O
O
M
2
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
H
W
C
top
up
9
9
8
0
9980m
m
IC
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
RWP
access point access point
alternative source of water for fire fighting
SEPA discharge consent Ref : CAR/R/1157926
roadside
ditch
roadside
ditch
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
graded
banking
at 45
deg
m
ax
300m
m
dia
culvert hatched
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
52.230
60.424
59.835
59.397
59.296
58.092
51.886
49.008
47.374 47.228
48.197
48.281
47.820
46.726
49.856
49.832
45.5
46.0
46.5
47.0
47.5
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.5
50.0
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
53.5
54.0
54.5
55.0
55.5
56.0
56.5
57.0
57.5
59.0
59.5
60.0
43.5 43.544.044.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.547.047.5
48.048.549.049.550.050.5
51.051.5
52.0
52.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.558.058.559.059.5
46.5
47.047.548.048.549.049.550.050.551.051.552.052.553.053.554.054.555.055.556.056.557.057.5
50.5
51.0
51.5
52.0
52.5
53.0
43.043.043.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
43.5
43.0
43.0
43.5
44.0
44.5
45.0
45.5
46.0
46.0
45.5
BUILDING POSITION
STABLES
3
7
9
6
.
1
4
5
1
7
2
0
3
.
4
3
8
8466.996
15715.104
10938.435
61.145 FFL.
C
O
O
K
I
N
G
S
L
E
E
P
I
N
G
S
E
A
T
I
N
G
E
A
T
I
N
G
s
h
o
w
e
r
r
o
o
m
E
A
T
I
N
G
borehole
PLOT 1
ROWAN BRAE EXISTING ACCESS UTILISED
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
© Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey 1000+99+5. For full terms and conditions please visit www.ordnancesurveyleisure.co.uk 400 m
1000 ft
29
30
NM
1 of 1
APPLICATION SITE
57.327
56.649
55.624
53.984
52.906
5
7
.
5
5
8
.
0
5
8
.
5
5
9
.
0
5
9
.
5
5
2
.
5
5
3
.
0
5
3
.
5
5
4
.
0
5
4
.
5
5
5
.
0
5
5
.
5
5
6
.
0
5
6
.
5
5
7
.
0
5
7
.
5
5
0
.
5
5
1
.
0
5
1
.
5
5
2
.
0
5
2
.
5
5
3
.
0
NEW ACCESS FORMED
ON LAND IN APPLICATS
OWNERSHIP UTILISING
EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD
ACCESS TO BE SHARED
WITH ROWAN BRAE
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SITE AREA
50m x 50m
(2500 sq m)
SW soakaway
septic tank to
total soakaway
Proposed 1.5 storey house
footprint 100 sq m.
APPLICATION SITE
Inveresregan House
Ardchattan
Argyll
PA37 1RG
07766394079
inveresregan8@gmail.com
Date
Project
Scale
Sheet Size
Drawing Number
Drawing title
LOCATION AND SITE  PLAN
Project Title
Client
Mr Malcolm Sloss
PROPOSED SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT
ROWAN BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN
ARGYLL, PA34 4QB
Drawing Number
BUILDING DESIGN STUDIO
A1
PPP
001BDS524
10.05.2023
B
LOCATION PLAN 1 : 1250 SITE  PLAN 1 : 500
LOCATION PLAN 2 SCALE 1 : 10000
Argyll and Bute Council
REFUSED by the PLANNING AUTHORITY
Relative to Application No:
23/00825/PPP
Fergus Murray
Head of Development and Economic Growth
17 October 2023
Page 33

Page 34

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 35

STATEMENT OF CASE 
FOR 
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL 
LOCAL REVIEW BODY 
24/0002/LRB 
REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 23/00825/PPP 
SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF A DWELLINGHOUSE 
LAND NORTH OF ROWAN BRAE, GLENCRUITTEN, OBAN 
31 JANUARY 2024 
Page 35 Agenda Item 3b

Page 36

STATEMENT OF CASE
The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr
Malcolm Sloss (“the appellant”).
Planning permission 23/00825/PPP for the site for the erection of a dwellinghouse on an
area of land to the north of Rowan Brae, Glencruitten, Oban (“the appeal site”) was refused
by the Planning Service under delegated powers on the 17 October 2023.
The decision has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
The site the subject of the application is a relatively flat area of ground elevated above the
Barran-Connel public road which runs along the east of the site. The site rises up to the rear
of the site to the north and the northwest. There are two stable buildings to the south of the
site beyond which is an agricultural building and a small cluster of residential development
associated with the junction of the public road leading to Oban.
Whilst an indicative position for the dwellinghouse was shown on site plan, the purpose of
the application was to establish the principle of development with the matters of layout and
design to be addressed by way of future application(s) for approval of matters specified in
conditions.
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 site represents a suitable opportunity within the defined Rural
Opportunity for development with a dwellinghouse respecting the established
settlement pattern of the area within which it is proposed and whether the
development of the site with a dwellinghouse will result in an adverse impact on the
wider landscape.
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
Page 36

Page 37

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 appellant contends that the proposed site respects the established settlement pattern
along the Connel Back Road and disagrees with the assessment undertaken by the
Planning Authority. 
The appellant opposes the view of the Planning Service that the site is not an ‘appropriate
site’ and the view that the loss of open space is an un-evidenced assumption on the part of
the Planning Service.   
The appellant contends that the development of the site with a dwellinghouse would not
result in any material harm to the landscape, local character and appearance as stated by
the Planning Service with the site not being appreciable along the pubic road to the east of
the site.  The appellant contends that the site is not visible from the public road and for the
Planning Service to use the word harm overstretches the reality. 
The Planning Service has no comments to make on the appellants submission with the
assessment of the application undertaken by the Planning Service fully detailed in the
Report of Handling appended to this statement. 
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. 
It remains the view of the Planning Service, as set out in the Report of Handling appended to
this statement, that the existing stables on the lower ground form the natural boundary for
the small cluster of development at this location and, in this instance, it is considered that the
proposal to develop the site with a dwellinghouse would harmfully extend the existing cluster
of development and unacceptably harm the rural landscape character and appearance of the
area. 
Taking account of the above, it is respectfully requested that the application for review be
dismissed. 
Page 37

Page 38

APPENDIX 1
Report of Handling Relative to 23/00825/PPP 
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: 23/00825/PPP
Planning Hierarchy: Local 
Applicant: Mr Malcolm Sloss 
Proposal: Site for the erection of a dwellinghouse 
Site Address:  Land North of Rowan Brae, Glencruitten, 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 
• Site for the erection of a dwellinghouse 
• Proposed private drainage system 
• Proposed private water supply 
• Upgrade of existing vehicular access 
(ii) Other specified operations 
• N/A 
(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 29/06/23 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to
conditions being imposed on the grant of permission to secure the appropriate upgrade at
the junction with the public road, clearance of visibility splays and provision of an
appropriate parking and turning area within the site. 
Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service (EHS) 
Page 38

Page 39

Memo dated 24/07/23 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to a
condition being imposed on the grant of permission to secure a report on the proposed
water supply to ensure that it is sufficient to serve the proposed development. 
Argyll and Bute Council – Access Officer 
No response. 
Argyll and Bute Council – Oban Airport 
No response. 
Consultation responses 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 27/07/23. 
(F) REPRESENTATIONS:   
No representations have been received regarding the proposed development. 
(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 
(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
Page 39

Page 40

(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 14 – Design, Quality and Place
NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods
NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes
NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes
NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First
NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management 
‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ Adopted March 2015 
LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development 
LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones 
LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment 
LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities 
LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design 
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
SG LDP ENV 7 – Water Quality and the Environment 
Landscape and Design 
SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape 
General Housing Development 
SG LDP HOU 1 – General Housing Development Including Affordable Housing Provision 
Sustainable Siting and Design 
SG LDP Sustainable – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles 
Resources and Consumption 
SG LDP SERV 1 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants & Wastewater Systems
SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features / SuDS
Page 40

Page 41

SG LDP SERV 5(b) – Provision of Waste Storage & Collection Facilities within New
Development
SG LDP SERV 6 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation 
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
SG LDP TRAN 7 – Safeguarding of Airports 
(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. 
• 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 Notifiable Modifications is a material consideration in the determination
of all planning and related applications. 
Spatial and Settlement Strategy 
Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas
Policy 04 – Sustainable Development 
High Quality Places 
Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking
Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure
Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting
Policy 09 – Sustainable Design
Policy 10 – Design – All Development 
Connected Places 
Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road
Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses
Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision
Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes 
Sustainable Communities 
Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation
Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment
Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems
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 
Page 41

Page 42

(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 
(P)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: 
• N/A 
(P)(ii) Soils
Agricultural Land Classification:  Class 5.2 - Land capable of use as improved
grassland. Few problems with pasture
establishment but may be difficult to maintain. 
Class 5.3 - Land capable of use as improved
grassland. Pasture deteriorates quickly.
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
ABC pLDP2 Settlement Strategy
(tick all relevant boxes) 
☐Settlement Area
Page 42

Page 43

☐Key Rural Settlement Area
☐Village/Minor Settlement Area
☒Rural Opportunity Area
☐Countryside Zone
☐Very Sensitive Countryside Zone
☐Greenbelt
☒Countryside Area
☐Remote Countryside Area
☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt
ABC LDP 2015 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: 
N/A
ABC pLDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: 
N/A 
(P)(v) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material
considerations 
The application is seeking to secure planning permission in principle for a single
dwellinghouse on an area of ground to the north of Rowan Brae on the Connel Back Road,
Oban. 
Whilst an indicative position for the dwellinghouse has been shown, the purpose of this
application is to establish the principle of development with the matters of layout and design
to be addressed by way of future application(s) for approval of matters specified in
conditions. 
Development along the Connel Back road generally comprises small clusters of
development, some set alongside the public road and others set back, with these clusters
broken up with areas of open ground. 
The site the subject of the application is a relatively flat area of ground elevated above the
Barran-Connel public road which runs along the east of the site.  The site rises up to the
rear of the site to the north and the north west.  There are two stable buildings to the south
of the site beyond which is an agricultural building and a small cluster of residential
development associated with the junction of the public road leading to Oban. 
It is considered that the stables effectively terminate the extent of built development at this
location with the development of the site with a dwellinghouse extending the existing built
development at this location in an unacceptable manner, resulting in the loss of open space
between the existing cluster of development to the south and the small pairing of
dwellinghouses to the north.   
An existing vehicular access spurring from the UC19 Barran – Connel public road is to be
utilised to serve the proposed development with drainage and water supply via private
arrangements due to the lack of public infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. 
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.   
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 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.   
Page 43

Page 44

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 related harm 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
adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection could
be secured via planning condition in the event that planning permission in principle were to
be granted. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in compliance with
NPF4 Policy 3 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1 and Policy 73 of
pLDP2 insofar as it relates to this matter. 
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. Neither is it
located within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area or
within an area identified as wild land. 
The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 4
as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1 G LDP ENV 1 and SG LDP
ENV 4 and Policy 75 of pLDP2 insofar as it relates to this matter. 
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. Of relevance, the policy sets out that proposals on greenfield sites will not be
supported unless the site is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. 
Whilst the development proposed by this planning application is on a greenfield site, in
terms of our adopted settlement strategy, the site of the proposed development is within a
rural opportunity area (ROA) where LDP Policies LDP STRAT 1 and LDP DM 1 give
general encouragement to development on appropriate sites including infill, rounding off
and redevelopment.  These main policy considerations are underpinned by the SG
contained within SG LDP HOU 1 and SG LDP ENV 14 which offer further support to
appropriate scales of residential development where such development would have no
significant adverse impact upon the character of the landscape and where there is no
unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact.   
However, whilst the site is within a ROA where the LDP gives general support to small-
scale housing development, Policy DM1 support is qualified to ‘appropriate sites’.
Furthermore, this support is subject to on-going capacity evaluation of the ROA. In this
case, it is considered the proposal would unacceptable erode the rural character of the
landscape and introduce a more suburban character to the landscape, leading to possible
coalescence and linear development. It is noted that permission in principle is only sought
at this stage. However, it is not considered that matters of detailed design and siting would
prevent or sufficiently mitigate this harm. 
The site is elevated above the level of the existing cluster of development to the south
where it is considered that the existing stables on the lower ground form the natural
boundary for the small cluster of development to the south, an area which has been subject
of development pressure in the last few years.  It is considered that extending the
development beyond the stables would extend the existing cluster of development in an
inappropriate manner to the detriment of the wider landscape, resulting in linear
development and eroding the rural character of the area. This resultant material harm to
landscape, local character and appearance would be appreciable along the public road to
Page 44

Page 45

the immediate east of the site.   
It is considered that the proposed development is contrary to NPF4 Policy 9, LDP Policies
LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP HOU 1 and Policy
02 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 establish the principle of
a new single dwellinghouse. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when
operational, it will benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to
comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. In this regard, the
proposed development is considered to be in compliance with NPF 4 Policy 12(c) as
underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 10 and SG LDP SERV 5(b) and Policy 63 of pLDP2. 
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 development the subject of this planning application seeks to establish the principle of
a new single dwellinghouse.  The application proposes to utilise an existing private access
track spurring from the UC19 Barran-Connel public road to serve the proposed
development.  The Council’s Roads Authority have been consulted on the application and
raised no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions regarding the
upgrade of the access at the junction with the public road, the clearance and maintenance
of visibility splays and the provision of an appropriate parking and turning area within the
site.  Subject to such details being secured via condition in the event that planning
permission in principle were to be granted, the proposal is considered to be compliant with
the terms of NPF4 Policy 13 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 11, SG LDP TRAN 2, SG
LDP TRAN 4 and SG LDP TRAN 6, and Policies 37, 39 and 40 of pLDP2, which collectively
seek to ensure that developments are served by a safe means of vehicular access and
have an appropriate parking and turning area within the site. 
NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that
makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place
Principle’. 
NPF4 Policy 14(c) states that development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental
to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful
place will not be supported.  In this instance, whilst the site the subject of the application is
within a ROA, where the LDP gives general support to small-scale housing development,
this is qualified to ‘appropriate sites’ and is subject to on-going capacity evaluation of the
ROA to avoid overdevelopment which could erode the rural character of the landscape and
introduce a more suburban character to the landscape with development between existing
dwellinghouses leading to possible coalescence and linear development. 
It is considered that the existing stables on the lower ground form the natural boundary for
the small cluster of development to the south and extending the development beyond the
stables would extend the existing cluster of development in an inappropriate manner to the
detriment of the wider landscape. 
The proposed development fails to pay regard to the wider surroundings of the site in terms
of the existing development pattern, character, scale and density and is considered to be
contrary to NPF4 Policy 14 as underpinned by LDP Policy LDP DM 1 and SG LDP HOU
and Policies 02 and 08 of pLDP2. 
NPF4 Policy 15 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place
Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the
majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. 
Page 45

Page 46

In terms of our adopted settlement strategy, as detailed at NPF4 Policies 9 and 14 above,
the site of the proposed development is within a ROA where LDP Policies LDP STRAT 1
and LDP DM 1 give general encouragement to development on appropriate sites including
infill, rounding off and redevelopment.  These main policy considerations are underpinned
by the SG contained within SG LDP HOU 1 and SG LDP ENV 14 which offer further
support to appropriate scales of residential development where such development would
have no significant adverse impact upon the character of the landscape and where there is
no unacceptable environmental, servicing or access impact.   
However, as detailed at NPF4 Policies 9 and 14 above, the presumption in favour of
development in ROAs is subject to on-going capacity evaluation of the ROA to avoid
overdevelopment which could erode the rural character of the landscape and introduce a
more suburban character to the landscape with development between existing
dwellinghouses leading to possible coalescence and linear development.   
In this instance, the proposed development site would fail to respect the existing
established settlement pattern resulting in an adverse environmental impact and therefore
would fail to meet the requirements of NPF4 Policy 15 as underpinned by the settlement
strategy policies contained within LDP Policies LDP DM 1, LDP 8, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG
LDP HOU 1. 
NPF4 Policy 16 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high
quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of
tenure to meet diverse housing needs. 
Policy 16 supports development proposals for new homes that improve choice, including at
Policy 16(c) ‘self-provided homes’. 
The need in Policy 16(f) to ensure that development proposals for an agreed timescale for
build-out will be covered through the use of a planning condition. 
In the case of this application, whilst the timescale for build-out could be secured via
condition to be addressed by way of future application(s) for approval of matters specified in
conditions, based on the harm and resultant policy conflict identified in respect of
landscape, character and appearance, the application site is not consistent with the LDP
spatial strategy.  The proposed development is therefore considered to conflict with NPF4
Policy 16 as underpinned by LDP Policies LDP DM 1, LDP 8 and SG LDP HOU 1. 
NPF4 Policy 17 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high
quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. 
The development the subject of this planning application is located within a defined ‘remote
rural area’ where Policy 17(c) offers support only where such proposals: 
i. Support and sustain existing fragile communities;
ii. Support identified local housing outcomes; and
iii. Are suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact. 
The proposed development seeks planning permission in principle for a single
dwellinghouse. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would contribute
to housing for the existing local community, as outlined above, the siting of the development
is considered unsustainable due to its location and the resulting impact upon landscape and
potential coalescence and linear development which would occur.  The proposed
development would therefore be contrary to the aims of NPF4 Policy 17 as underpinned by
LDP Policy LDP DM 1. 
NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach
to land use planning. 
Page 46

Page 47

The development the subject of this planning application proposes private drainage and
water supply arrangements due to the lack of public infrastructure within the vicinity of the
site.  As the application is seeking planning permission in principle, no details of the
proposed drainage or water supply details have been submitted with the application, with
these being subject of approval through a further planning application(s) should planning
permission in principle be granted.  The Council’s EHS raised no objection to the use of a
private water supply subject to a report being submitted demonstrating that the supply is
sufficient to serve the proposed development and will not adversely impact on existing
users of the supply or adjacent supplies.  Such details could be secured via planning
conditions in the event that planning permission in principle were to be granted rendering
the proposal consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 18 as underpinned by LDP
Policies LDP 11, SG LDP SERV 1 and SG LDP SERV 6 and Policies 58 and 60 of pLDP2
which seek to ensure that suitable infrastructure is available to serve developments and
give support to private arrangements where connection to the public systems is not
available. 
NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water
resources are used efficiently and sustainably. 
As detailed above water supply is via a private supply to which the Council’s EHS raised no
objection to subject to a condition being imposed on the grant of permission to secure a
report to demonstrate that the private supply is sufficient to serve the proposed
development.  The management of rain and surface water at the site would be managed
through the provision of a sustainable urban drainage system, which could be adequately
secured through the use of a planning condition should permission in principle be granted. 
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of NPF4 Policy 22 as
underpinned by LDP Policies LDP 11, SG LDP SERV 6 and Policies 58, 59 and 61 of
pLDP2. 
Whilst it has been demonstrated that appropriate servicing and infrastructure arrangements
can be provided to serve the proposed development, the principle of the development of the
site with a dwellinghouse is not considered to be acceptable as it would extend the existing
built development in an unacceptable manner, resulting in the loss of important spacing
between development clusters and leading to possible coalescence and linear
development. 
Matters Raised by Proposed Local Development Plan 2 (as modified by Examination) 
Proposed Local Development Plan 2 as recommended to be modified by the Examination
Report is now a significant material consideration. In this instance it is considered that this
application would conflict with policies 02, 04, 05, 08, and 10.   
Other matters 
It is noted that the proposal would contribute to local housing supply (particularly in the
context of the Council’s Housing Emergency declaration). In addition, beyond the material
harm regarding landscape, character and appearance and the resultant policy conflict, no
other harm has been identified. However, these considerations would not outweigh the
harm and policy conflict set out above which in this case are determinative when assessed
against the development plan as a whole. 
(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No 
(R) Reasons why Planning Permission in Principle Should be Refused: 
See reasons for refusal below. 
Page 47

Page 48

(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: 18/09/23 
Reviewing Officer: Bryn Bowker Date: 17/10/23 
Fergus Murray
Head of Development & Economic Growth 
Page 48

Page 49

REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/00825/PPP 
1. The proposed development on this greenfield site conflicts with National Planning Policy
NPF4 Policy 9. NPF4 Policy 9 (b) states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be
supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly
supported in the LDP. 
Whilst the site is within a Rural Opportunity Area, Policy DM1 support is qualified to
‘appropriate sites’. Furthermore, this support is subject to on-going capacity evaluation of the
Rural Opportunity Area. 
The site is elevated above the level of the existing cluster of development to the south where
it is considered that the existing stables on the lower ground form the natural boundary for
this small cluster of development. In this case, it is considered that the proposal would
harmfully extend the existing cluster of development and unacceptably harm the rural
landscape character and appearance of the area. 
Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to NPF4 policies 9,
14 and 17, Policies LDP STRAT 1, LDP DM 1, LDP 3, LDP 9, SG LDP ENV 14 and SG LDP
HOU 1. 
Page 49

Page 50

APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE 
Appendix relative to application 23/00825/PPP 
(A) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in
terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing.
☐Yes ☒No 
(B) The reason why planning permission has been refused: 
See reasons for refusal above. 
Page 50

Page 51

APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE 
Appendix relative to application 23/00848/PPP 
(C) 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 
(D) The reason why planning permission has been approved: 
See reasons for refusal above. 
Page 51

Page 52

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 53

Page 53

Page 54

This page is intentionally left blank