Notice of Review and Appeal Statement_Redacted
Argyll and Bute Council · 12 February 2024
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 12 February 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
No embedded text on this page.
Page 2
No embedded text on this page.
Page 3
Page 4
+
Page 5
Page 6
- 3 + 3 &
Page 7
Page 8
* + - 7
Page 9
Page 10
3 - 5 6< "!! 8 ? -
Page 11
No embedded text on this page.
Page 12
* 4 5 - 6
Page 13
Page 14
* <
Page 15
3 , 8& - & 1 & - + - -
Page 16
Page 17
& ?
Page 18
+ 3 4 5 - / & @ - 3
Page 19
Page 20
& /
Page 21
Page 22
3 *
Page 23
Page 24
63 - +
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
< 8 E
Page 28
Page 29
-&
Page 30
: -7 3 , + 3 - F
Page 31
6 - ,
Page 32
8& :
Page 33
' * ,
Page 34
+ 3& 0- * +
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
G; F 5 6< "!! 8 / , + -
Page 38
No embedded text on this page.
Page 39
-
Page 40
7
Page 41
- - 3
Page 42
), , & :
Page 43
3+ 3 3 3 *-
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
6 < -
Page 47
-
Page 48
87
Page 49
3
Page 50
+ *
Page 51
*- *
Page 52
*- ' - < & B+
Page 53
3 3 *-
Page 54
-- : / 3
Page 55
4 5 0- 7
Page 56
< * < * 37 3 3 7 3 3
Page 57
3
Page 58
-- *- 3
Page 59
Page 60
Page 61
3
Page 62
Page 63
*
Page 64
Page 65
+ 3 5 6< "!! 8 ; + 3
Page 66
Page 67
+
Page 68
-
Page 69
7
Page 70
+
Page 71
3 3 * 3 - + 3
Page 72
Page 73
- + 3& :
Page 74
5 6< "!! 8 +
Page 75
- & + * - + & ?
Page 76
3 *
Page 77
4 5 ?
Page 78
3
Page 79
Page 80
* 4 5 + 3
Page 81
3
Page 82
Page 83
Page 84
*
Page 85
Page 86
+ 3
Page 87
Page 88
+ 3 ' - - *
Page 89
*
Page 90
+ 3& 1 - * '
Page 91
* * -
Page 92
7 3 * H
Page 93
-
Page 94
9
Page 95
3 *I - + 3 & + 3 7 7 *
Page 96
+ 3 - + - +
Page 97
Page 98
* -
Page 99
7 3 -
Page 100
4 1 <7 3 * 7 7 & 5 : / 0 + + 3
Page 101
Page 102
Page 103
Page 104
Page 105
7
* -
Page 106
*
Page 107
4 5 : / 0 * - *
Page 108
-
Page 109
3 * 4 5 : / - 3 , , + +
Page 110
Page 111
- - & 1 * - *
Page 112
Page 113
+
Page 114
& B+ +
Page 115
Page 116
Page 117
Page 118
No embedded text on this page.
Page 119
- 4& 5 : / B+ +
Page 120
Page 121
Page 122
Page 123
- * - 3 *I - : / + 34 5 0- 7 *- - 7 + +
Page 124
Page 125
No embedded text on this page.
Page 126
- : / /9
Page 127
Page 128
No embedded text on this page.
Page 129
Page 130
Page 131
Page 132
3
Page 133
'
Page 134
3 + 3
Page 135
* 4 5 B+ +
Page 136
Page 137
- ' + 3
Page 138
* 3 : /
Page 139
6 * -
Page 140
8 3 + 3 *
Page 141
Page 142
4 5 / : 7 -7 3 , + 3 & :
Page 143
' * ,
Page 144
+ 3& : + -
Page 145
No embedded text on this page.
Page 146
- + 3
Page 147
& 0 - * 3 - + 37 -
Page 148
+
Page 149
Page 150
3 + 3
Page 151
Page 152
- + 3& -
Page 153
7
Page 154
+
Page 155
3
Page 156
: / 6&&
Page 157
3 8 3 3 *I - + 3 5 / ? + 3 - && 3 -
Page 158
- 7 + + -
Page 159
3 - + - -
Page 160
Page 161
7
Page 162
+ * +
Page 163
- *7 +
Page 164
Page 165
No embedded text on this page.
Page 166
6 - 8 - & -
Page 167
229!2!D 9 29!A92!2 #9!92!22
Page 168
09? 9 - - + 3
Page 169
Page 170
& / 29292!2
Page 171
No embedded text on this page.
Page 172
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Site Description: The proposed development site, situated north of the Ballyhaugh Hebridean Outdoor Centre on the Isle of Coll, Argyll, and Bute, is a greenfield site characterized by its unique topography. Located at the base of a 50-meter hill, it offers distinct environmental advantages, notably protection from northerly and easterly winter winds. Development Proposal: The planned farmworkers dwelling, encompassing three parking spaces and a new access point, has been meticulously designed to comply with both local and national planning guidelines. The proposal signifies a commitment to sustainable development within an area designated as 'Countryside'. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 1. Policy Conflict and Resolution: • NPF4 Policy 9: While the proposal appears to conflict with NPF4 Policy 9, we argue it constitutes an "exceptional case" due to the site's unique location and topographical features. • LDP and LDP2 Consideration: While not formally adopted, the Local Authority’s recent publication of LDP2 proposals is a significant material planning consideration. Our client’s site is situated in a designated 'Countryside Area', aligning with LDP2's focus on sustainable development in rural settings.
Page 173
2. Legal and Policy Framework: • The primacy of NPF4: NPF4, as a national policy, overrides local development plans in decision-making processes. Our appeal challenges the refusal's alignment with this legal precedence. • Comprehensive Policy Analysis: A detailed analysis is required to determine if the decision to refuse the application adequately considered the holistic approach mandated by NPF4, as emphasised in the Chief Planner's guidance. DETAILED ARGUMENT 1. Holistic Application of NPF4 • The Chief Planner’s directive states that NPF4 policies should not be isolated to justify planning decisions. The refusal suggests a selective interpretation of these policies, which is inconsistent with the holistic approach required. 2. Alignment with NPF4 and LDP2 Objectives: • The development aligns with the overarching objectives of NPF4 and emerging policies within LDP2, focusing on sustainable development and ecological preservation. 3. Inadequate Consideration of Material Considerations: • The refusal indicates a potential oversight in considering the chief planner's guidance and the emerging LDP2 policies. This oversight may render the decision legally questionable. 4. Possibility of Judicial Review: • Given these legal concerns, the decision may be subject to judicial review, focusing on the compliance of the decision-making process with policy interpretation and material considerations.
Page 174
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The refusal of the proposed development raises substantial legal questions regarding the application of NPF4 in conjunction with LDP and LDP2. Our analysis suggests that a more comprehensive approach, as advised by the Chief Planner, could lead to an alternative outcome. We propose reconsidering the decision, ensuring it aligns with the legal and policy frameworks governing planning decisions. Response to Landscape Impact Concerns: • Architectural Adaptation: The design of the proposed dwelling will be sensitively adapted to complement the natural landscape. • Sustainability: The development emphasises eco-friendly design and energy efficiency. • Economic and Social Benefits: The development is projected to impact the local economy and address housing needs positively. • Respect for Rural Evolution: The proposal is designed to balance development with conservation, respecting the changing nature of rural communities. In summation, our appeal presents a balanced approach that respects the area's character and the broader community interest. We advocate for a decision harmonising preservation with progress, enhancing community well-being and environmental sustainability. CONTACT INFORMATION Thomas Cochrane BSc. (Hons) HND, CPC Planning Services UK The Circle 69-71 Aberdalgie Road Easterhouse, Glasgow G34 9HJ
Page 175
APPENDIX i. Ballyhough Farm, encompassing a significant expanse of land, is home to an impressive livestock collection comprising 120 sheep and 35 cattle, alongside a distinguished herd of native Luing cattle. Under the astute management of Allan Brodie, the farm has been operated as an efficient satellite extension of Ballard Farm. Project Trust initiated this strategic move following the acquisition of the sole residential property on the premises roughly four decades after the passing of Alex Conway. Mr. Brodie has successfully integrated and consistently complied with many designated regulations and standards in the ensuing years, further enhancing the farm's operational excellence.
Page 176
ii. The agricultural operations of the farms are now jointly managed through a partnership between Allan Brodie and Juliet Conway, Alex Conway's daughter. Juliet’s partner, John Morrison, predominantly undertakes the day-to-day farm work. The couple resides in a quaint cottage in Uig, a mere three miles from Ballyhough, where they raise their two children enrolled in the nearby primary school, currently educating a small cohort of only five children. iii. Juliet Conway has deep-rooted connections with Ballyhough, having spent her childhood there until her teenage years. The farm holds historical significance for her family, as it has been maintained by her mother’s lineage for several generations, embedding a rich familial legacy within its lands. iv. The Ballard and Ballyhough Farms, located two miles apart and connected by the rugged CO16/C474 core path, demonstrate a commitment to efficiency and environmental stewardship. While Ballyhough Farm lacks a traditional farmhouse, it is fully equipped with comprehensive livestock management facilities, including a fank and pens, which play a pivotal role in routine agricultural processes such as sheep shearing, veterinary care, and cow calving. v. During the demanding calving season, John Morrison skilfully manages multiple daily trips using a quad bike. In intricate calving needs, his dedication extends to overnight stays at the shed. A strategically placed mobile caravan was introduced near the shed last winter to facilitate these operations, complementing his daily silage distribution runs with a tractor and trailer. This
Page 177
adaptive approach exemplifies the farm's operational resilience and strengthens the case for environmentally conscious development. vi. The farm has conducted a thorough carbon audit in alignment with its sustainability ethos, underscoring its commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Despite the high petrol costs for quad bike operations, the farm's proactive strategies aim to enhance its economic viability while advancing its sustainability objectives, ensuring a balanced approach to modern, environmentally conscious farming practices. vii. The selection of the proposed site, although situated outside the designated development area, was meticulously made due to its strategic orientation away from the Project Trust and its two turbines and its proximity to the SSSI. Several key factors influenced this decision. Firstly, as indicated on the left, its location in a rocky area is ideally suited for the intended purpose. Secondly, the site is conveniently accessible via an existing track leading to a former farm quarry, which enhances logistical efficiency. viii. Finally, its closeness to the existing fank and electricity supply streamlines operations and reduces the need for extensive infrastructural development, aligning with practical and environmental considerations. This thoughtful site selection process underscores a commitment to balancing development needs with environmental sensitivity and operational practicality. ix. x.
Page 178
xi. The design chosen for the application, notably the White House design from Heb Homes, has been carefully selected to harmonise with the architectural style of the former farmhouse at Ballyhough. This decision ensures that the new structure seamlessly integrates into the existing landscape, maintaining the area's aesthetic continuity and natural beauty. The design strategy prioritises blending the property with its surroundings, mitigating potential visual discordance. xii. In addition to aesthetic considerations, there is a strong emphasis on building an energy-efficient property aligned with a low-impact lifestyle. This approach reflects a commitment to sustainability and environmental responsibility. Given the thoughtful design and sustainability objectives, it is challenging to understand how this property could be perceived as having an 'unacceptable or materially harmful impact on the wider landscape'. The design and construction plans are meticulously crafted to respect and enhance the natural setting, ensuring a minimal ecological footprint and preserving the landscape's integrity.
Page 179
No embedded text on this page.