Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 30 June 2022
Back to Argyll and Bute Local Review Body — 30 June 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 23 June 2022 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL REVIEW BODY will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 2022 at 2:30 PM, or at the conclusion of the Argyll and Bute Local Review Body at 2.30 pm, whichever is later, 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: GLENFORSA AIRFIELD, GLENFORSA, ISLE OF MULL, PA72 6JN (REF: 22/0003/LRB) (a) Notice of Review and Supporting Documentation (Pages 3 - 50) (b) Comments from Interested Parties (Pages 51 - 68) (c) Comments from Applicant (Pages 69 - 76) Argyll and Bute Local Review Body Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Liz McCabe Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel: 01546 604392 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Page 1 of 5 Central Validation Team at Argyll and Bute Council 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Tel: 01546 605518 Email: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk Applications cannot be validated until all the necessary documentation has been submitted and the required fee has been paid. Thank you for completing this application form: ONLINE REFERENCE 100557416-001 The online reference is the unique reference for your online form only. The Planning Authority will allocate an Application Number when your form is validated. Please quote this reference if you need to contact the planning Authority about this application. Applicant or Agent Details Are you an applicant or an agent? * (An agent is an architect, consultant or someone else acting on behalf of the applicant in connection with this application) Applicant Agent Agent Details Please enter Agent details Company/Organisation: Ref. Number: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * First Name: * Building Name: Last Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Telephone Number: * (Street): * Extension Number: Address 2: Mobile Number: Town/City: * Fax Number: Country: * Postcode: * Email Address: * Is the applicant an individual or an organisation/corporate entity? * Individual Organisation/Corporate entity Houghton Planning Ltd Paul Houghton MRTPI Whins Road Alloa Business Centre 07780117708 FK10 3RF Scotland Clacks Alloa paul@houghtonplanning.co.uk Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Page 2 of 5 Applicant Details Please enter Applicant details Title: You must enter a Building Name or Number, or both: * Other Title: Building Name: First Name: * Building Number: Address 1 Last Name: * (Street): * Company/Organisation Address 2: Telephone Number: * Town/City: * Extension Number: Country: * Mobile Number: Postcode: * Fax Number: Email Address: * Site Address Details Planning Authority: Full postal address of the site (including postcode where available): Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Address 4: Address 5: Town/City/Settlement: Post Code: Please identify/describe the location of the site or sites Northing Easting Mr GLENFORSA AIRFIELD Brendan Argyll and Bute Council Walsh GLENFORSA Salen Glenforsa Hotel ISLE OF MULL PA72 6JN PA72 6JW Scotland 743011 Mull 159367 paul@houghtonplanning.co.uk Page 4
Page 5
Page 3 of 5 Description of Proposal Please provide a description of your proposal to which your review relates. The description should be the same as given in the application form, or as amended with the agreement of the planning authority: * (Max 500 characters) Type of Application What type of application did you submit to the planning authority? * Application for planning permission (including householder application but excluding application to work minerals). Application for planning permission in principle. Further application. Application for approval of matters specified in conditions. What does your review relate to? * Refusal Notice. Grant of permission with Conditions imposed. No decision reached within the prescribed period (two months after validation date or any agreed extension) – deemed refusal. Statement of reasons for seeking review You must state in full, why you are a seeking a review of the planning authority’s decision (or failure to make a decision). Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. If necessary this can be provided as a separate document in the ‘Supporting Documents’ section: * (Max 500 characters) Note: you are unlikely to have a further opportunity to add to your statement of appeal at a later date, so it is essential that you produce all of the information you want the decision-maker to take into account. You should not however raise any new matter which was not before the planning authority at the time it decided your application (or at the time expiry of the period of determination), unless you can demonstrate that the new matter could not have been raised before that time or that it not being raised before that time is a consequence of exceptional circumstances. Have you raised any matters which were not before the appointed officer at the time the Yes No Determination on your application was made? * If yes, you should explain in the box below, why you are raising the new matter, why it was not raised with the appointed officer before your application was determined and why you consider it should be considered in your review: * (Max 500 characters) Erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and formation of hardstanding area See attached Local Review Statement Page 5
Page 6
Page 4 of 5 Please provide a list of all supporting documents, materials and evidence which you wish to submit with your notice of review and intend to rely on in support of your review. You can attach these documents electronically later in the process: * (Max 500 characters) Application Details Please provide the application reference no. given to you by your planning authority for your previous application. What date was the application submitted to the planning authority? * What date was the decision issued by the planning authority? * Review Procedure The Local Review Body will decide on the procedure to be used to determine your review and may at any time during the review process require that further information or representations be made to enable them to determine the review. Further information may be required by one or a combination of procedures, such as: written submissions; the holding of one or more hearing sessions and/or inspecting the land which is the subject of the review case. Can this review continue to a conclusion, in your opinion, based on a review of the relevant information provided by yourself and other parties only, without any further procedures? For example, written submission, hearing session, site inspection. * Yes No Please indicate what procedure (or combination of procedures) you think is most appropriate for the handling of your review. You may select more than one option if you wish the review to be a combination of procedures. Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) Please select a further procedure * Please explain in detail in your own words why this further procedure is required and the matters set out in your statement of appeal it will deal with? (Max 500 characters) In the event that the Local Review Body appointed to consider your application decides to inspect the site, in your opinion: Can the site be clearly seen from a road or public land? * Yes No Is it possible for the site to be accessed safely and without barriers to entry? * Yes No Application as submitted Report of Handling Decision Notice Local Review Statement 21/00018/PP 30/03/2022 Holding one or more hearing sessions on specific matters By means of inspection of the land to which the review relates 07/01/2021 See Local Review Statement See Local Review Statement Page 6
Page 7
Page 5 of 5 If there are reasons why you think the local Review Body would be unable to undertake an unaccompanied site inspection, please explain here. (Max 500 characters) Checklist – Application for Notice of Review Please complete the following checklist to make sure you have provided all the necessary information in support of your appeal. Failure to submit all this information may result in your appeal being deemed invalid. Have you provided the name and address of the applicant?. * Yes No Have you provided the date and reference number of the application which is the subject of this Yes No review? * If you are the agent, acting on behalf of the applicant, have you provided details of your name Yes No N/A and address and indicated whether any notice or correspondence required in connection with the review should be sent to you or the applicant? * Have you provided a statement setting out your reasons for requiring a review and by what Yes No procedure (or combination of procedures) you wish the review to be conducted? * Note: You must state, in full, why you are seeking a review on your application. Your statement must set out all matters you consider require to be taken into account in determining your review. You may not have a further opportunity to add to your statement of review at a later date. It is therefore essential that you submit with your notice of review, all necessary information and evidence that you rely on and wish the Local Review Body to consider as part of your review. Please attach a copy of all documents, material and evidence which you intend to rely on Yes No (e.g. plans and Drawings) which are now the subject of this review * Note: Where the review relates to a further application e.g. renewal of planning permission or modification, variation or removal of a planning condition or where it relates to an application for approval of matters specified in conditions, it is advisable to provide the application reference number, approved plans and decision notice (if any) from the earlier consent. Declare – Notice of Review I/We the applicant/agent certify that this is an application for review on the grounds stated. Declaration Name: Mr Paul Houghton MRTPI Declaration Date: 25/04/2022 Site is fenced. Page 7
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 9
1 | P a g e LOCAL REVIEW STATEMENT Reference No: 21/00018/PP Applicant: Mr Brendan Walsh Proposal: Erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and formation of hardstanding area Site Address: Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa, Isle of Mull Preliminaries This Local Review Statement has been prepared in response to the refusal of Planning Permission under delegated powers of Application ref:21/00018/PP ‘Erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and formation of hardstanding area’ (hereafter the Application) at Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa, Isle of Mull (hereafter the Application Site). The Applicant is Mr Brendan Walsh (hereafter the Applicant) of Glenforsa Hotel who operates Glenforsa Airfield under a lease from the Estates Department of Argyll & Bute Council. The Applicant bought Glenforsa Hotel in 2003, and has leased the Airfield since 2015. His current lease runs to 2040. The lease includes maintenance responsibilities that the Applicant must perform to keep the Airfield open, which requires him to have machinery, for which he currently has no storage space (see further below). He is also required to hold third party insurance for the Airfield at a significant cost to himself. The Airfield is run as a separate business to the hotel under the name Glenforsa Airfield Ltd. This company runs at a loss, but the Applicant is accepting of that because he is an experienced and very enthusiastic flyer himself, and sees running the Airfield as a vocation. He also has his own plane, which is a vintage Boeing Stearman, an 80-year-old biplane. He is unable to hangar this at the Airfield, and so keeps it at Oban Airfield during the winter, and then brings it to Glenforsa Airfield in the summer. The proposed hangar building will allow the Applicant to keep his plane at the Airfield all year long. The Application was refused on 30th of March 2022 for a single reason, as follows: “In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ (CZ) where Policy LDP DM 1 normally only gives encouragement to small scale developments on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. Page 9
Page 10
2 | P a g e Within the Countryside Zone all development proposals which are not small scale infill, rounding off, or redevelopment might be supported if it is deemed that an appropriate ‘exceptional case’ has been made and where the proposed development can be shown to have no materially harmful landscape impact in accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. In the case of the current application, the site for the development does not represent infill, rounding-off or redevelopment. In this case, no sufficient claim of an exceptional case has been presented by the applicant. Upon request for additional supporting information the applicant has provided justification on landscape terms only. The details submitted are not considered sufficiently substantive so as to underpin the special circumstances of the proposal without which the development would be considered contrary to the provisions of the LDP. As the current application is not accompanied by the requisite supportive evidence to underpin the claim of an exceptional case, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of SG LDP DM 1 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015.” It will be obvious straightaway that much of this Statement is addressing the ‘exceptional case’ that the Applicant considers exists, and justifies Planning Permission being granted. The Applicant accepts that he should have submitted this at the time the Application was being considered. However, due to the case officer changing three times over the course of the year that the Application took to process, and crosswires in what was required, he did not provide the justification that he knew to exist based upon the community and economic importance of the Airfield, and why the hangar building is required to support its ongoing functioning and success. This is expanded upon below. A site visit and hearing have also been requested, as each will allow councillors to understand why the building is required, and will allow them to question the Applicant on what it is for, and why it is required for the ongoing and future success of the Airfield. This Statement will start with describing the proposal; then moves on to an introduction to Glenforsa Airfield; it will then explain the need for the proposed building, and why this represents the ‘exceptional case’ required by policy; and will then continue in the same order as the Report of Handling to address the other matters raised therein. Proposal The proposed building is a conventional hangar type building that will be eighteen metres long by twelve metres wide. It will be four metres to the eaves and 5.6 metres to the ridge. Page 10
Page 11
3 | P a g e The front of the building will have sliding doors that, like hangars across the world, can be pulled back beyond the main footprint of the building, so that the widest possible opening is available to allow a plane in and out. The building will be finished in profile sheeting, the colour of which can be green, or whatever colour councillors would prefer to see. Appearance-wise, with the doors closed, the building will appear like any number of agricultural sheds that can be found elsewhere on the island. In use terms, the Applicant has applied for a Class 6 storage and distribution building. However, there is no intention of it being used otherwise than in combination with the Airfield. Therefore, if councillors wish, they can specify that by planning condition. An area of hardstanding will be provided around the hangar building, with vehicular access via the existing grass trackway that connects this part of the Airfield with the gated vehicular access to the Airfield itself, and its parking area, which are situated to the immediate north west of the hotel. The parking area is accessed from the A849 by a part public and part private road that also serves the hotel, a farmyard, and about fourteen private houses, one of which is the Applicant’s own home. Glenforsa Airfield The airfield was built in 1965 by the army (Royal Engineers) to support the cottage hospital in Salen. It is still used by the air ambulance helicopter to this day, and is thus an important, potentially lifesaving, facility for the island. There were twenty-four medical related flights from the 1st of October 2021 to date this year that used the Airfield, and the Applicant ensures that the helicopter landing pad is always available throughout the year. It has also, in the past, been used for commercial flights to the island, but these ceased in 1980 when the Loganair flight that served the island, and connected it to Oban and Glasgow, ended. Today, most of the use of the landing strip is by small aircraft using it to land on Mull between the 1st of May and 1st of October when it is available to general flyers. This includes day trippers and people visiting the island for a longer stay, and some islanders who own planes. It is mainly used by planes, but also sometimes by microlights and helicopters. It also receives charter flights from Glasgow and further afield for groups coming to the island to play golf, or to stay elsewhere on the island and explore its attractions. The most regular charter flights are by Hebridean Air who fly in with charter flights a few times a year, with up to eight passengers. Argyll Aeroclub members can also make use of the Airfield, with members flying over from Oban and elsewhere. It also exists as an attraction for flyers from far and wide who wish to fly to and visit the island, or simply land on one of the few unspoilt grass strips still available in Scotland, and cross this one off their (flying-related) bucket lists. When the Applicant first bought Glenforsa Hotel in 2003, the Airfield had 192 movements per year (a movement is one flight in and the same plane leaving). In 2021, there were 881 Page 11
Page 12
4 | P a g e movements, and more are expected this year (2022) as Covid restrictions have now been lifted. As can be seen, therefore, the Airfield is an important facility for the island offering a lifeline medical facility, and a way for people to visit Mull other than by ferry, whilst it also exists as a tourist attraction in its own right. It is difficult to say exactly in monetary terms what economic benefit the Airfield brings to the island. The landing fees that are charged are small, but it is clear from reviews online, what the Applicant hears about, and other anecdotal evidence, that people flying into the Airfield are spending money in the wider island economy, as well as the Applicant’s hotel. This reaches its maximum around the annual Mull Air Rally in May, which has attracted over 150 aircraft, and famous faces, to the island in past years. The event this year is set to take place on the 28th and 29th of May. There are also other events in August and September. The photograph above is from the 2021 Mull Air Rally event. Page 12
Page 13
5 | P a g e The Applicant runs the Airfield very much as a labour of love. Although landing fees are charged, as mentioned already, these do not cover the cost of maintaining the Airfield, which is, instead, left to the Applicant to do himself. Although the strip is grass, and the wider area is grazed by livestock, or left for silage, there is still a lot of work required to mow the strip and keep it in decent shape and available. This is a never-ending process and requires the Applicant to have machinery both large (a tractor) and small to do the tasks necessary. The Airfield currently has nowhere to store this equipment, which was the reason for this Application in the first place, with the building being used to house existing and new equipment and keep it out of the worst of the weather. The need for the building was so obvious to the Applicant, and he thought to the case officer, that he did not think he would need to explicitly explain this. However, in hindsight he wishes he had, as that may have allowed the Application to have been approved. He now hopes councillors will grant him Planning Permission instead. Apart from the Applicant’s own plane, the building will offer storage for at least the following: a tractor and grass mower, a telehandler, two other smaller mowers, a roller, a harrow, and a mini digger. If someone else’s plane gets stuck at the Airfield, which can happen in severe weather, it will also offer temporary storage space for that as well. As for the location chosen for the building, then the Applicant has carefully chosen it to be away from the operational part of the Airfield, in an area that seems less useful for farming, but in a location that is still accessible by vehicles. It has also been sited away from the Glenforsa Hotel, and the houses that border the Airfield, to avoid noise intrusion, and in a location that is visually discreet against a backdrop of mature conifer trees (see images below). All the above represents the Applicant’s ‘exceptional case.’ Page 13
Page 14
6 | P a g e Consultations These are noted. In particular, the Applicant accepts what the Council’s Estates Department have said, and he is happy to work with them to facilitate the agreement of the agricultural tenant, which is anyway a civil and not planning matter. The Applicant is of the view that there is a good prospect of the tenant agreeing to the building, particularly given its location, and so councillors can be comforted that, if they grant Planning Permission, it can (and will) be implemented. Representations The responses of the case officer to the various points raised by objectors are noted and agreed. Policy and Guidance The list of policies and guidance in the report of handling is agreed with. Assessment The case officer’s assessment of the proposal starts and ends with the fact that the Applicant did not submit an ‘exceptional case.’ That has been accepted above, and the reasons for that explained. However, it is hoped that, having now read the case presented above, councillors will agree that there is a rationale for why the Airfield needs a hangar building, and why it should be located as indicated. There is thus an ‘exceptional case.’ That just leaves the question of the Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE) to be considered, which is explained in detail in Supplementary Guidance. An ACE is described as a “tool to assess planning applications in the relevant development control zones, in order to establish the capacity of the wider countryside containing the application site to successfully absorb that particular development.” In effect, it is a version of a landscape appraisal where you understand the landscape into which the development is to be located, its ability to absorb development, and consider any visual impacts that the development may have. To start with, it should be noted that there are no national, regional, or local landscape designations that would be impacted upon by this proposal. The Sound of Mull is a Special Page 14
Page 15
7 | P a g e Area of Conservation, but the Application Site is over 160 metres from the sea, and as far away from it as you can get. The SNH ‘Landscape assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde’ (1996), which is mentioned in the guidance as a starting point for an ACE, places the Airfield in the ‘Coastal Plan’ landscape character area. The key characteristics of this area are noted as follows: Courtesy of SNH ‘Landscape assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde’ (1996) In terms of the Specific Landscape Guidelines for the area, then the following list applies, and none of these will be compromised in any way by this development taking place. Page 15
Page 16
8 | P a g e Courtesy of SNH ‘Landscape assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde’ (1996) In landscape terms, the major feature of this area is the Airfield, with the area being flat and grassed to allow planes to land. It is thus a part designed landscape rather than being a wholly natural one. On one side, the Sound of Mull borders the Airfield, and on the other it is bounded by mature woodland. It is, therefore, a landscape that can cope with some built form being added, particularly a building like this that you would expect to anyway see on an Airfield, or, indeed, on a farm. The case officer seems to agree with that view in that, in replying to one of the representations, she comments that “such a proposal would not be an uncommon addition to this location.” Hopefully, councillors will concur, and obviously the opportunity is anywhere there for them to visit the Application Site to confirm the acceptability of the siting for themselves. Page 16
Page 17
9 | P a g e Furthermore, if there is any lingering concern that the landscape cannot absorb this one building, then the Applicant would be happy to accept a planning condition requiring him to put in some landscaping. The more that things like this are required, however, the more negotiation there will need to be with the tenant, but the Applicant would rather have a consent albeit with a landscaping condition attached than no consent at all. The other issue that is considered in an ACE is visual impact. In that regard as well, the case officer has helpfully concluded that there will be no visual impact on Salen due to the distance (1500 metres) and that there are no core paths in the immediate vicinity that will be impacted upon. The only views of the building will be localised and from within the Airfield itself. It will be visible from there to locals, but will be the type of building that one would expect to find in such a location. In most cases, it would be there for agricultural purposes, although, in this case, it is there for a specific purpose related to the Airfield. Conclusion For the above reasons, it is considered that a robust case has been made that an ‘exceptional case’ exists. There is a locational and operational need for the building, which is tied to a precise location, i.e. the Airfield. There is also an overriding community (medical-related) and economic benefit. Furthermore, the building itself would anyway pass the ACE test, and will have limited landscape and visual impact. Planning Permission should, therefore, be granted as the Application accords with all development plan policies and related guidance. Page 17
Page 18
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 19
Page 19
Page 20
Page 20
Page 21
Page 21
Page 22
Page 22
Page 23
Page 23
Page 24
Page 24
Page 25
Page 25
Page 26
Page 26
Page 27
Page 27
Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 29
Page 29
Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 31
Page 31
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 33
Page 33
Page 34
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 35
Page 35
Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 37
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee 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: 21/00018/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr Brendan Walsh Proposal: Erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and formation of hardstanding area Site Address: Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa, Isle of Mull ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE Section 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of a steel building Formation of an area of hardstanding (ii) Other specified operations None ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission in principle be REFUSED for the reasons appended to this report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: 17/01497/PREAPP - Construction of aircraft hangar/ground equipment shed Prior to the submission of this planning application pre application advice was sought from the department. The pre application response advised that the site did not present any opportunities for infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of existing buildings and therefore the principle of development could not be supported at the site without an acceptable claim of an ‘exceptional case’ based on an operational or locational need. It was further advised that there is a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA) lying immediately to the Page 37
Page 38
west of the proposed site and it was suggested that this area may be a more suitable location. The ROA allows for up to small scale development on appropriate site. At that time it was advised what may constitute an exceptional case and that onus would be on the applicant to make those arguments through the submission of a planning application. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Roads Authority Report dated 11.03.2021 advising no objections to the proposal. Flood Risk Management (JBA) Memo dated 11.03.2021 advising no objections but recommendations that the applicant may want to ensure the finished floor level of the storage building is above the peak fluvial flood level plus climate change which is calculated to be 9.35AOD and as a further precaution given the proximity to multiple possible sources of flooding, the applicant may wish to ensure maintenance machinery with electrical components are stored off the floor. Environmental Health No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time. Argyll & Bute Council’s Estates Department (ED) E-mail dated 09.12.2021 advising that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the applicant’s activities as an airfield operator, however the proposal would require the formal consent of Argyll and Bute Council as landlord which in turn would be dependent upon the removal from the site of an existing agricultural tenancy covering the area. ED have further advised that if the issue with the agricultural holding was resolved they would consider granting such a consent but further consultations with other sections such as Airport operatives would be required. Oban Airport No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation responses are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 15.04.2021. ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Three objections and eight representations of support have been received regarding the proposed development: Support Victor Norman, Rainbow Barn, Rendcomb, Cirencester, GL7 7DF, dated 07.04.2021. James Gibson Fleming, Ardvergnish, Pennyghael, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 07.04.2021. William Hall, Gutchpool Farm, Gillingham, SP8 5QP, dated 08.04.2021. Chris Webb, Lowton Farm, Oake, Taunton, Somerset, TA4 1BD, dated 11.04.2021. Page 38
Page 39
Martin Gosling, Stones Farm, Wickham St. Paul's, Halstead, Essex, CO9 2PS, dated 12.04.2021. Robin Sedgwick, Crannich, Aros, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 15.04.2021. Gordon Moir, 2 Callow Hill Way, Littleover, Derby, DE23 3RJ, dated 19.04.2021. Erik Hadley, Corrachie, Salen, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 08.08.2021. The availability of a hangar for maintenance repairs and storage will provide a secure and sheltered zone for visiting aircraft and will make the logistics of maintaining the airfield much easier particularly during adverse weather conditions and in the event of emergencies. The proposal to improve this facility will enhance tourism prospects of the applicants Hotel. The proposal will be screened by the dense stand of trees tot eh south and a sympathetic colour of cladding would render the structure hard to see from anywhere other than directly in front. Planning Authority Comment: The planning authority acknowledges the support for the proposed development. Objections Hugh MacPhail, Callachy Farm, Salen, Aros, Isle of Mull, Argyll, PA72 6JN, dated 29.03.2021. Alexander Macaulay, 11 Jarvisfield Road, Salen, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 31.03.2021. Alex Jacobs, Bridges Cottage, A848 North of Aros from Drumfin Lodge to the C46 Dervaig Road Junction, Aros, Isle of Mull, dated 04.04.2021. Summary of issues raised Concerns that the site is being turned into an industrial space and the impact of the proposal which will be visible from Salen will upset the balance of the environment. Planning Authority Comment: The site is currently adjacent to an airstrip and within agricultural use. The proposed building will be sited approximately 1500 metres from Salen and such a proposal would not be an uncommon addition to this location where the existing airstrip is readily viewed from a wider area. Notwithstanding this, however, the proposed development does not comply with planning policy and all attempts to advise the applicant of the need to submit a detailed ‘exceptional case’ argument to justify the development have failed. Concerns that the proposed hanger and any such associated aircraft would have public safety implications as the site is part of the ‘falls’ walk which forms part of a well-known circular scenic path utilised by locals, dog walkers and visitors. Planning Authority Comment: Although the site is utilised by locals, dog walkers and visitors the constraints data has been checked and no Core Paths have been identified within the site. Any public safety implications would be a civil matter and not a matter for the planning department. Therefore, this is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Concerns that the author of the objection is the Agricultural Tenant on the Airfield and has been farming the area under an Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 tenancy since November 1977 which provides the security of tenure and full rights as per the terms of the lease where the landlord cannot sub-let land under the objectors tenancy to a third party. Argyll and Bute estates department recently referred to Mr Walsh as a tenant and I have correspondence which mentions "both airfield tenants". As the Page 39
Page 40
legal position does not permit the airfield to be sub-let, therefore it is not possible for Argyll and Bute to grant Mr Walsh a tenancy. Planning Authority Comment: The applicant has correctly submitted the Land Ownership Certificate to Argyll and Bute Council as landowner. The tenancy of the land is a civil matter between Argyll and Bute Council’s Estates Department and the tenant. Therefore, this is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Concerns that the author of the objection has not been informed of the terms of the current airfield tenancy/maintenance arrangement between Mr Walsh and Argyll and Bute Council. Concerns have been raised with the Argyll and Bute Council estates department with regard to the dilapidated state of the fences. The objector has no detail on whether Mr Walsh's tenancy/maintenance arrangement with Argyll and Bute stretches to the upkeep and replacement of the fences. Planning Authority Comment: The terms of the current airfield tenancy/maintenance arrangement between Mr Walsh and Argyll and Bute Council is a civil matter between both parties. Therefore, this is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Concerns that the site is unsuitable for a shed as it is a prime grazing and silage making area of the field and would greatly compromise the agricultural output. Planning Authority Comment: The proposed development does not seek to remove areas of protected agricultural land and this would be a private matter between the parties concerned. Concerns that the site is the furthest point from a power supply. Planning Authority Comment: This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. _________________________________________________________________________ (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development No e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ____________________________________________________________________________ (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 obligation required: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Page 40
Page 41
Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ____________________________________________________________________________ (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan, 2015 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones (Countryside Zone) 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 SG 2 – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features/Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision SG LDP TRAN 7 – Airport Safeguarding (i) 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. Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance, 2006 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 Consultation Responses Third Party Representations Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) The unchallenged policies and proposals within pLDP2 may be afforded significant material weighting in the determination of planning applications at this time as the settled and unopposed view of the Council. Elements of the pLDP2 which have been identified as being subject to unresolved objections still require to be subject of Examination by a Scottish Government appointed Reporter and cannot be afforded significant material weighting at this time. The provisions of pLDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Page 41
Page 42
Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ____________________________________________________________________________ (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ____________________________________________________________________________ (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (O) Requirement for a hearing: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning permission sought for the erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and the formation of a hardstanding area at Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa on the Isle of Mull. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ (CZ) where Policy LDP DM 1 normally only gives encouragement to small scale developments on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. Within the Countryside Zone all development proposals which are not small scale infill, rounding off, or redevelopment might be supported if it is deemed that an appropriate ‘exceptional case’ has been made and where the proposed development can be shown to have no materially harmful landscape impact in accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. In the case of the current application, the site for the development does not represent infill, rounding-off or redevelopment. In this case, no sufficient claim of an exceptional case has been presented by the applicant. Upon request for additional supporting information the applicant has provided justification on landscape terms only. The details submitted are not considered sufficiently substantive so as to underpin the special circumstances of the proposal without which the development would be considered contrary to the provisions of the LDP. Further correspondence was undertaken with the applicant who was formally notified in accordance with Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Page 42
Page 43
Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 that the planning authority cannot positively consider the planning application in the absence of the required details. These details requested were to be submitted within three weeks unless an alternative extended timescale for submission was agreed in writing with the case officer. Additional time was requested and a further three weeks extension was given; giving the applicant six weeks to submit the necessary requested details. No such requested information has been forthcoming. Without an exceptional case to demonstrate a locational and / or operational need tied to a precise location, there is nothing to underpin the exceptional case argument and the Planning Authority is unable to trigger the ACE process. In this regard the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of SG LDP DM 1 above and no further assessment of the site has been undertaken by the Planning Authority. Taking all of the above into consideration, the application has not been accompanied by sufficient information to underpin the exceptional case argument to justify the development of the site within the Countryside Zone rendering it contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP DM 1. In light of the above, it is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons appended to this report. It is recognised that it is open to the applicant to reapply should he so wish and to present a more comprehensive argument that may enable officers to look more favourably upon these proposals. ____________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why planning permission should be refused See reasons for refusal below. ____________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No ____________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Judith Stephen Date: 17.03.2022 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 29.03.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 43
Page 44
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 21/00018/PP 1. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ (CZ) where Policy LDP DM 1 normally only gives encouragement to small scale developments on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. Within the Countryside Zone all development proposals which are not small scale infill, rounding off, or redevelopment might be supported if it is deemed that an appropriate ‘exceptional case’ has been made and where the proposed development can be shown to have no materially harmful landscape impact in accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. In the case of the current application, the site for the development does not represent infill, rounding-off or redevelopment. In this case, no sufficient claim of an exceptional case has been presented by the applicant. Upon request for additional supporting information the applicant has provided justification on landscape terms only. The details submitted are not considered sufficiently substantive so as to underpin the special circumstances of the proposal without which the development would be considered contrary to the provisions of the LDP. As the current application is not accompanied by the requisite supportive evidence to underpin the claim of an exceptional case, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of SG LDP DM 1 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015. Page 44
Page 45
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 21/00018/PPP (A) Has the application required an obligation under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). No ______________________________________________________________________ (B) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. No ______________________________________________________________________ (C) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______________________________________________________________________ (D) Reasons for refusal of planning application. The proposal is considered to be contrary to policy LDP DM 1of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, 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. Page 45
Page 46
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 47
Municipal Buildings Albany Street Oban PA34 4AW TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2013 REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE NUMBER: 21/00018/PP Mr Brendan Walsh Glenforsa Hotel 1 Salen Isle Of Mull PA72 6JW I refer to your application dated 7th January 2021 for planning permission in respect of the following development: Erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and formation of hardstanding area AT: Glenforsa Airfield Glenforsa Isle Of Mull Argyll And Bute PA72 6JN Argyll and Bute Council in exercise of their powers under the above mentioned Act and Regulations hereby refuse planning permission for the above development for the reasons(s) contained in the attached appendix. Dated: 30 March 2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 47
Page 48
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 21/00018/PP 1. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ (CZ) where Policy LDP DM 1 normally only gives encouragement to small scale developments on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. Within the Countryside Zone all development proposals which are not small scale infill, rounding off, or redevelopment might be supported if it is deemed that an appropriate ‘exceptional case’ has been made and where the proposed development can be shown to have no materially harmful landscape impact in accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. In the case of the current application, the site for the development does not represent infill, rounding-off or redevelopment. In this case, no sufficient claim of an exceptional case has been presented by the applicant. Upon request for additional supporting information the applicant has provided justification on landscape terms only. The details submitted are not considered sufficiently substantive so as to underpin the special circumstances of the proposal without which the development would be considered contrary to the provisions of the LDP. As the current application is not accompanied by the requisite supportive evidence to underpin the claim of an exceptional case, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of SG LDP DM 1 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015. Page 48
Page 49
NOTES TO APPLICANT (1) RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER 21/00018/PP 1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision to refuse permission for or approval required by a condition in respect of the proposed development, or to grant permission or approval subject to conditions, the applicant may require the planning authority to review the case under Section 43A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) within three months from the date of this notice. A Notice of Review request must be submitted on an official form which can be obtained by contacting The Local Review Body, Committee Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT or by email to localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk 2. If permission to develop land is refused or granted subject to conditions and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state, and it cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted, the owner of the land may serve on the planning authority a purchase notice requiring the purchase of the landowner’s interest in the land, in accordance with Part 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). Page 49
Page 50
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application: 21/00018/PP A. Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. Yes/No (delete as appropriate) if yes, list amendments B. Is the proposal a departure from the Development Plan: No If yes, state level of departure: No Departure C. Summary justification statement for refusal of planning permission The proposal is considered to be contrary to policies [enter relevant policies] of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, 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. Page 50
Page 51
STATEMENT OF CASE FOR ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL LOCAL REVIEW BODY 22/0003/LRB REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION 21/00018/PP FOR THE ERECTION OF A STEEL BUILDING FOR THE STORAGE OF AIRFIELD MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AND AIRCRAFT AND FORMATION OF HARDSTANDING GLENFORSA AIRFIELD, GLENFORSA, ISLE OF MULL 27.04.2022 Page 51 Agenda Item 3b
Page 52
STATEMENT OF CASE The Planning Authority is Argyll and Bute Council (‘the Council’). The appellant is Mr Brendan Walsh (“the appellant”). Planning permission 21/00018/PP for the erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and formation of hardstanding area at Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa, Isle of Mull (“the appeal site”) was refused by the Planning Service under delegated powers on 30.03.2022. The planning application has been appealed and is subject of referral to a Local Review Body. DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ (CZ) where Policy LDP DM 1 normally only gives encouragement to small scale developments on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. Within the Countryside Zone all development proposals which are not small scale infill, rounding off, or redevelopment might be supported if it is deemed that an appropriate ‘exceptional case’ has been made and where the proposed development can be shown to have no materially harmful landscape impact in accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. The site for the development does not represent infill, rounding-off or redevelopment and no claim of any ‘exceptional case’ was made during the life of the planning application despite repeated requests for such information should the appellant be relying upon this to support his development proposals. 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 appellant has demonstrated an ‘exceptional case’ based on an overriding locational or operational need sufficient to warrant the approval of the development in compliance with Policy DM 1 of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. 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. Page 52
Page 53
REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND A HEARING The planning application the subject of this Review was properly assessed based on the information submitted. The Appellant is now seeking to support the development through a detailed submission that was not available to officers at the time of their determination. The submitted information is entirely new and raises substantive material issues not previously available. This will require, effectively, a completely fresh assessment including any necessary consultations. This Notice of Review was received on the 27th April 2022 with a statement of case required to be submitted by planning officers by the 11th May. It is not possible for officers to carry out a competent assessment of this new submission within that timeframe. It is respectfully suggested that the correct mechanism for this new information to be properly and competently assessed would be through the submission of a new formal application for planning permission. COMMENT ON APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION The appellant’s agent contends that an ‘exceptional case’ exists and justifies planning permission being granted. The Appellant accepts that he should have submitted this at the time the planning application was being considered. The appellant’s agent contends that due to the case officer changing three times over the course of the year that the application took to process, and ‘crossed wires’ in what was required, he did not provide the justification that he knew to exist based upon the community and economic importance of the Airfield, and why the hangar building is required to support its ongoing functioning and success. Planning Authority Comment: The Planning Authority strenuously contests this interpretation of the events. Nearly four years prior to the submission of the planning application the subject of this Review, the Appellant submitted a request for pre-application advice for the same development on the same site. He was advised by officers in writing on the 6th July 2017 of the constraints and opportunities applicable to the development; that no appropriate infill, rounding-off or redevelopment opportunities exist and that any formal planning application should, therefore, be accompanied by a detailed statement outlining any ‘exceptional case’. The Appellant then engaged a local planning agent to further this enquiry and that agent was advised in writing on the 22nd August 2017 that officers had met with the Appellant to discuss the development, that they had discussed potential more suitable and more easily supportable alternative sites within his land ownership and again reiterating that any formal planning application for the development on the site the subject of this subsequent Review must be supported by an appropriate exceptional case. No follow-up planning application was made at that time. The Appellant then contacted the same planning case officer again in September 2020 seeking to revisit the previous pre-application enquiry and was informed in writing for the third time that any such development would need to be supported by an appropriate exceptional case. The planning application the subject of this Review was submitted on the 7th January 2021 (and validated on the 24th February 2021). This planning application was not accompanied by any claim of any ‘exceptional case’ required to justify the development within the Countryside Zone. Page 53
Page 54
Officers sought to secure any missing ‘exceptional case’ information and whilst some preliminary detail was eventually submitted, it did not meet the necessary threshold tests. Officers then sought again to require this information; this time formally through the use of Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008. This formal written request for information was issued on the 19th January 2022 with a requirement that any claim of exceptional case that the Appellant may rely upon to offer justification for his proposed development be submitted no later than the 2nd February 2022 unless any extended time period is agreed. The Appellant was advised at this time that his planning application would be determined on the basis of the information submitted unless additional supporting information/evidence was submitted within the agreed (or any agreed extended) timeframe. It was subsequently agreed to extend the compliance period until the 2nd March 2022. The 2nd March came and went with no subsequent communication from the Appellant and the planning application was refused on the 29th March 2022, some 13 months after the application was first validated. It is true that the original planning case officer who handled the various strands of the pre- application advice between July 2017 and September 2020 left the employment of the Council in October 2020. It is also true that the case officer originally assigned the formal planning application in February 2021 left the employment of the Council before its eventual determination in March 2022. However, the case files clearly show a consistency and clarity of advice over the best part of four and a half years, during which time every conceivable opportunity has been afforded the Appellant. CONCLUSION It is not considered possible or appropriate to carry out a new assessment of the proposed development based on entirely new evidence under the scope and remit of this Review. It is respectfully submitted that the Review Body should either set aside the new ‘exceptional case’ justification contained within the Appellant’s submission and determine this Review based upon the information submitted with the planning application or else to seek that the Review be withdrawn in favour of the submission of a new planning application to enable officers to properly assess the new information submitted. Page 54
Page 55
APPENDIX 1 Report of Handling Relative to 22/00018/PP Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth Delegated or Committee 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: 21/00018/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr Brendan Walsh Proposal: Erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and formation of hardstanding area Site Address: Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa, Isle of Mull ____________________________________________________________________________ DECISION ROUTE Section 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) ____________________________________________________________________________ (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission Erection of a steel building Formation of an area of hardstanding (ii) Other specified operations None ____________________________________________________________________________ (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission in principle be REFUSED for the reasons appended to this report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) HISTORY: 17/01497/PREAPP - Construction of aircraft hangar/ground equipment shed Page 55
Page 56
Prior to the submission of this planning application pre application advice was sought from the department. The pre application response advised that the site did not present any opportunities for infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of existing buildings and therefore the principle of development could not be supported at the site without an acceptable claim of an ‘exceptional case’ based on an operational or locational need. It was further advised that there is a Rural Opportunity Area (ROA) lying immediately to the west of the proposed site and it was suggested that this area may be a more suitable location. The ROA allows for up to small scale development on appropriate site. At that time it was advised what may constitute an exceptional case and that onus would be on the applicant to make those arguments through the submission of a planning application. ____________________________________________________________________________ (D) CONSULTATIONS: Roads Authority Report dated 11.03.2021 advising no objections to the proposal. Flood Risk Management (JBA) Memo dated 11.03.2021 advising no objections but recommendations that the applicant may want to ensure the finished floor level of the storage building is above the peak fluvial flood level plus climate change which is calculated to be 9.35AOD and as a further precaution given the proximity to multiple possible sources of flooding, the applicant may wish to ensure maintenance machinery with electrical components are stored off the floor. Environmental Health No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time. Argyll & Bute Council’s Estates Department (ED) E-mail dated 09.12.2021 advising that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the applicant’s activities as an airfield operator, however the proposal would require the formal consent of Argyll and Bute Council as landlord which in turn would be dependent upon the removal from the site of an existing agricultural tenancy covering the area. ED have further advised that if the issue with the agricultural holding was resolved they would consider granting such a consent but further consultations with other sections such as Airport operatives would be required. Oban Airport No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation responses are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. ____________________________________________________________________________ (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 15.04.2021. ____________________________________________________________________________ (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Three objections and eight representations of support have been received regarding the proposed development: Support Page 56
Page 57
Victor Norman, Rainbow Barn, Rendcomb, Cirencester, GL7 7DF, dated 07.04.2021. James Gibson Fleming, Ardvergnish, Pennyghael, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 07.04.2021. William Hall, Gutchpool Farm, Gillingham, SP8 5QP, dated 08.04.2021. Chris Webb, Lowton Farm, Oake, Taunton, Somerset, TA4 1BD, dated 11.04.2021. Martin Gosling, Stones Farm, Wickham St. Paul's, Halstead, Essex, CO9 2PS, dated 12.04.2021. Robin Sedgwick, Crannich, Aros, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 15.04.2021. Gordon Moir, 2 Callow Hill Way, Littleover, Derby, DE23 3RJ, dated 19.04.2021. Erik Hadley, Corrachie, Salen, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 08.08.2021. The availability of a hangar for maintenance repairs and storage will provide a secure and sheltered zone for visiting aircraft and will make the logistics of maintaining the airfield much easier particularly during adverse weather conditions and in the event of emergencies. The proposal to improve this facility will enhance tourism prospects of the applicants Hotel. The proposal will be screened by the dense stand of trees tot eh south and a sympathetic colour of cladding would render the structure hard to see from anywhere other than directly in front. Planning Authority Comment: The planning authority acknowledges the support for the proposed development. Objections Hugh MacPhail, Callachy Farm, Salen, Aros, Isle of Mull, Argyll, PA72 6JN, dated 29.03.2021. Alexander Macaulay, 11 Jarvisfield Road, Salen, Isle of Mull, Argyll, dated 31.03.2021. Alex Jacobs, Bridges Cottage, A848 North of Aros from Drumfin Lodge to the C46 Dervaig Road Junction, Aros, Isle of Mull, dated 04.04.2021. Summary of issues raised Concerns that the site is being turned into an industrial space and the impact of the proposal which will be visible from Salen will upset the balance of the environment. Planning Authority Comment: The site is currently adjacent to an airstrip and within agricultural use. The proposed building will be sited approximately 1500 metres from Salen and such a proposal would not be an uncommon addition to this location where the existing airstrip is readily viewed from a wider area. Notwithstanding this, however, the proposed development does not comply with planning policy and all attempts to advise the applicant of the need to submit a detailed ‘exceptional case’ argument to justify the development have failed. Concerns that the proposed hanger and any such associated aircraft would have public safety implications as the site is part of the ‘falls’ walk which forms part of a well-known circular scenic path utilised by locals, dog walkers and visitors. Planning Authority Comment: Although the site is utilised by locals, dog walkers and visitors the constraints data has been checked and no Core Paths have been identified within the site. Any public safety implications would be a civil matter and not a matter for the planning department. Therefore, this is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Page 57
Page 58
Concerns that the author of the objection is the Agricultural Tenant on the Airfield and has been farming the area under an Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991 tenancy since November 1977 which provides the security of tenure and full rights as per the terms of the lease where the landlord cannot sub-let land under the objectors tenancy to a third party. Argyll and Bute estates department recently referred to Mr Walsh as a tenant and I have correspondence which mentions "both airfield tenants". As the legal position does not permit the airfield to be sub-let, therefore it is not possible for Argyll and Bute to grant Mr Walsh a tenancy. Planning Authority Comment: The applicant has correctly submitted the Land Ownership Certificate to Argyll and Bute Council as landowner. The tenancy of the land is a civil matter between Argyll and Bute Council’s Estates Department and the tenant. Therefore, this is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Concerns that the author of the objection has not been informed of the terms of the current airfield tenancy/maintenance arrangement between Mr Walsh and Argyll and Bute Council. Concerns have been raised with the Argyll and Bute Council estates department with regard to the dilapidated state of the fences. The objector has no detail on whether Mr Walsh's tenancy/maintenance arrangement with Argyll and Bute stretches to the upkeep and replacement of the fences. Planning Authority Comment: The terms of the current airfield tenancy/maintenance arrangement between Mr Walsh and Argyll and Bute Council is a civil matter between both parties. Therefore, this is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Concerns that the site is unsuitable for a shed as it is a prime grazing and silage making area of the field and would greatly compromise the agricultural output. Planning Authority Comment: The proposed development does not seek to remove areas of protected agricultural land and this would be a private matter between the parties concerned. Concerns that the site is the furthest point from a power supply. Planning Authority Comment: This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. _________________________________________________________________________ (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Statement: No (ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: (iii) A design or design/access statement: No (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development No e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ____________________________________________________________________________ Page 58
Page 59
(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (i) Is a Section 75 obligation required: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ____________________________________________________________________________ (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan, 2015 LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones (Countryside Zone) 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 SG 2 – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape SG LDP SERV 2 – Incorporation of Natural Features/Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) SG LDP TRAN 4 – New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes SG LDP TRAN 6 – Vehicle Parking Provision SG LDP TRAN 7 – Airport Safeguarding (i) 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. Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance, 2006 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 Consultation Responses Third Party Representations Argyll and Bute proposed Local Development Plan 2 (November 2019) The unchallenged policies and proposals within pLDP2 may be afforded significant material weighting in the determination of planning applications at this time as the settled and unopposed view of the Council. Elements of the pLDP2 which have been identified as being subject to unresolved objections still require to be subject of Examination by a Scottish Government appointed Reporter and cannot be afforded significant material weighting at this time. The provisions of pLDP2 that may be afforded significant weighting in the determination of this application are listed below: Page 59
Page 60
Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes ____________________________________________________________________________ (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ____________________________________________________________________________ (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ____________________________________________________________________________ (M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (O) Requirement for a hearing: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning permission sought for the erection of a steel building for the storage of airfield maintenance equipment and aircraft and the formation of a hardstanding area at Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa on the Isle of Mull. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ (CZ) where Policy LDP DM 1 normally only gives encouragement to small scale developments on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. Within the Countryside Zone all development proposals which are not small scale infill, rounding off, or redevelopment might be supported if it is deemed that an appropriate ‘exceptional case’ has been made and where the proposed development can be shown to have no materially harmful landscape impact in accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. In the case of the current application, the site for the development does not represent infill, rounding-off or redevelopment. In this case, no sufficient claim of an exceptional case has been presented by the applicant. Upon request for additional supporting information the applicant has provided justification on landscape terms only. The details submitted are not considered sufficiently Page 60
Page 61
substantive so as to underpin the special circumstances of the proposal without which the development would be considered contrary to the provisions of the LDP. Further correspondence was undertaken with the applicant who was formally notified in accordance with Regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 that the planning authority cannot positively consider the planning application in the absence of the required details. These details requested were to be submitted within three weeks unless an alternative extended timescale for submission was agreed in writing with the case officer. Additional time was requested and a further three weeks extension was given; giving the applicant six weeks to submit the necessary requested details. No such requested information has been forthcoming. Without an exceptional case to demonstrate a locational and / or operational need tied to a precise location, there is nothing to underpin the exceptional case argument and the Planning Authority is unable to trigger the ACE process. In this regard the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of SG LDP DM 1 above and no further assessment of the site has been undertaken by the Planning Authority. Taking all of the above into consideration, the application has not been accompanied by sufficient information to underpin the exceptional case argument to justify the development of the site within the Countryside Zone rendering it contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP DM 1. In light of the above, it is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons appended to this report. It is recognised that it is open to the applicant to reapply should he so wish and to present a more comprehensive argument that may enable officers to look more favourably upon these proposals. ____________________________________________________________________________ (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ____________________________________________________________________________ (R) Reasons why planning permission should be refused See reasons for refusal below. ____________________________________________________________________________ (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No ____________________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Judith Stephen Date: 17.03.2022 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 29.03.2022 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 61
Page 62
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 21/00018/PP 1. In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ (CZ) where Policy LDP DM 1 normally only gives encouragement to small scale developments on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. Within the Countryside Zone all development proposals which are not small scale infill, rounding off, or redevelopment might be supported if it is deemed that an appropriate ‘exceptional case’ has been made and where the proposed development can be shown to have no materially harmful landscape impact in accordance with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the planning authority. In the case of the current application, the site for the development does not represent infill, rounding-off or redevelopment. In this case, no sufficient claim of an exceptional case has been presented by the applicant. Upon request for additional supporting information the applicant has provided justification on landscape terms only. The details submitted are not considered sufficiently substantive so as to underpin the special circumstances of the proposal without which the development would be considered contrary to the provisions of the LDP. As the current application is not accompanied by the requisite supportive evidence to underpin the claim of an exceptional case, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of SG LDP DM 1 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015. Page 62
Page 63
APPENDIX TO DECISION REFUSAL NOTICE Appendix relative to application 21/00018/PP (A) Has the application required an obligation under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). No ______________________________________________________________________ (B) Has the application been the subject of any “non-material” amendment in terms of Section 32A of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) to the initial submitted plans during its processing. No ______________________________________________________________________ (C) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______________________________________________________________________ (D) Reasons for refusal of planning application. The proposal is considered to be contrary to policy LDP DM 1of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015, 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. Page 63
Page 64
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 65
Page 65
Page 66
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 67
Dear Local Review Panel, I would like to submit the following comments to the local review process in relation to the Glen Forsa Airfield Planning proposal (21/00018/PP). I would ask the local review panel to take into account my comments and objections relating to my full secure Pre 1991 agricultural tenancy arrangements on Glenforsa Airfield which I have raised with the Argyll & Bute estates department over the last 18 months. As my lawyers have pointed out to Argyll and Bute, the applicant has no legal right to any lease or tenancy on the airfield and any arrangement granted by Argyll and Bute Council will need to reversed. Jennifer Crawford in the estates department has sent a reminder of this outstanding matter to the legal department in Argyll and Bute council. This is fundamental to granting any planning application as the applicant has no right to build on the land within my lease and granting any planning permission would be pointless. I would encourage the review panel to establish the tenancy position as part of their wider considerations. I have also had significant correspondence with the councils estates department regarding upkeep of the boundary fences and the main entrance gate to the airfield which they state is the responsibility of Mr Walsh (the applicant). The fences and entrance gate are in a dilapidated state of repair which is a significant health and safety risk and must also be addressed as part of the wider consideration in this review process. The Airfield is critical for the emergency services and I have proactively supported this service and the local community for the last 45 years as tenant of Glenforsa airfield and I strongly object to transient users looking to make changes for the their personal benefit which has been clearly stated in the local review statement. As the tenant of Glenforsa Airfield (with as registered right to buy) I would insist that I am invited to any site visits from the planning review panel along with my representatives. Kind Regards Hugh MacPhail Page 67
Page 68
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 69
Dear Lynsey, In response to the case officer’s statement, I can comment as follows. It is entirely proper and acceptable for the applicant to put forward his ‘exceptional case’ as part of this local review submission. Not only was this matter before the appointed officer in deciding on the application, a fact accepted in the case officer’s further statement, but even were it a new matter, which is isn’t, it is clearly material to the determination of this case, and advice in Circular 5/2013: Schemes of delegation and local reviews paragraph 25 (copy attached) would allow the admission of the evidence in both circumstances. I am not sure why the time given to the case officer to consider the applicant’s case has not been enough, as the case is reasonably straightforward, and quick to read and understand. However, if more time is required by the case officer to consider the case that has been made, and councillors are willing to grant that time, then the applicant has no objection to that. The applicant does not wish to withdraw his local review, and is keen to hear councillors’ views on the case presented. The applicant has written a separate response to Mr MacPhail’s comments (copy attached). Regards Paul Houghton MRTPI Houghton Planning Ltd m: 07780 117708 e: paul@houghtonplanning.co.uk w: www.houghtonplanning.co.uk This communication contains information that is confidential and might also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. Thank you for your co-operation. From: Innis, Lynsey <Lynsey.Innis@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Sent: 12 May 2022 10:41 To: paul@houghtonplanning.co.uk Cc: localreviewprocess <localreviewprocess@argyll-bute.gov.uk> Subject: Notice of Review Reference 22/0003/LRB (Planning Ref: 21/00018/PP) - Glenforsa Airfield, Glenforsa, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JN [OFFICIAL] Classification: OFFICIAL Dear Mr Houghton Please find attached the AB3a form, together with comments from interested parties in respect of the above case. You should note that you have 14 days to respond and the deadline date of Thursday, 26th May 2022 is detailed on the AB3a form. Kind Regards Lynsey Page 69 Agenda Item 3c
Page 70
Lynsey Innis Senior Committee Assistant Legal and Regulatory Support Argyll and Bute Council Kilmory Lochgilphead PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 604338 Email: lynsey.innis@argyll-bute.gov.uk Argyll and Bute – Realising our potential together For information on how we manage your data under the General Data Protection Regulations please click on the following link:- https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/data-protection Argyll and Bute Council's e-mail system (also used by LiveArgyll) classifies the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classifications. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by them. All communications sent to or from Argyll and Bute Council or LiveArgyll may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation. Page 70
Page 71
This email has been scanned for viruses, vandals and malicious content. Page 71
Page 72
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 73
Page 73
Page 74
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 75
I would like to respond to Mr MacPhail’s portrayal of my stewardship of Glenforsa Airfield. During my tenure aircraft movements have increased from 192 movements per year to 881. I am expecting this trend to continue due to our continued promotion of Glenforsa Airfield to the General Aviation Sector. I have carried out extensive drainage works on the airfield which has restored the runway to 100% safe usage from the 50% previously available. Maintenance of fencing and gates is ongoing and carried out during the season when livestock is not present on the airfield. I have made a significant investment in equipment for the maintenance of the airfield much of which has had to be replaced due to degradation as a result of being stored outside. It is my understanding that I am responsible for the maintenance of 50% of any fencing and not 100% as stated on several occasions by Mr Macphail. This has been confirmed by Argyll and Bute Council Estates Department. I am available to provide a licensed radio service and weather information to the Scottish Air Ambulance Service 24/7.This service is provided free of charge. I am involved in the installation and maintenance of the Emergency Lighting System that enables the Air Ambulance to safely operate at night. Hope this helps Brendan Page 75
Page 76
This page is intentionally left blank