Printed minutes
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 February 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 18 February 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2026 Present: Councillor Gordon Blair (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader – Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh & Lomond Tim Williams, Area Team Leader – Oban, Lorn and the Isles Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer David Moore, Senior Planning Officer Shelley Gould, Senior Planning Officer Norman Shewan, Planning Officer Helen Wallace, Local Biodiversity Project Officer Mark Lancaster, Council’s Landscape Consultant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Liz McCabe and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Jan Brown advised that the application in respect of High Brenfield Wind Farm was within her Ward area. She advised that she has had no involvement in this application and that she would remain in the meeting and take part the consideration of this report which is dealt with at Item 6 of this Minute. Councillors Gordon Blair and Audrey Forrest advised that the application in respect of Giant’s Burn Wind Farm was within their Ward area. They both confirmed that they have had no involvement in this application and that they would remain in the meeting and take part in the consideration of the report which is dealt with at item 8 of this Minute. 3. MINUTE The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 January 2026 was approved as a correct record. The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to vary the order of business and consider Agenda Item 5 (Application Reference 25/00600/S36) before Agenda Item 4 (Application Reference25/00516/PP) due one of the Planning Officers experiencing technical difficulties joining the meeting.
Page 2
4. CNOC BUIDHE WIND ENERGY HUB LIMITED: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION: CNOC BUIDHE WIND FARM ENERGY HUB, COMPRISING A WIND FARM OF UP TO 29 WIND TURBINES, WITH 14 OF THESE UP TO 180M TO BLADE TIP AND 15 UP TO 200M TO BLADE TIP, WITH ANCILLARY ENERGY STORAGE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: APPROXIMATELY 2.5 KM EAST OF BELLOCHANTUY AND 10 KM NORTHWEST OF CAMPBELTOWN (REF: 25/00600/S36) This item was continued from the previous meeting on 21 January 2026 to allow Members time to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion to object to this application on Landscape and Visual Impact Grounds. The Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) were advised of Argyll and Bute Council’s intention to object on these grounds and that a more detailed representation would be submitted following consideration of the matter at this meeting. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: Argyll and Bute Council object to the application based on NPF 4 policies 4a and 11 Section E, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 and LDP2 Policy 30 on the basis that the application would have a cumulative, significant and unacceptable adverse impact in respect of landscape, visual and cumulative matters. The current application comprises 29 wind turbines up to 200m high to blade tip. Landcover is almost entirely commercial forestry, in various stages of the planting, growing and felling cycle, connected by a network of forestry tracks. These tracks connect to the A83 which borders the site at its western access point. The Kintyre Way passes within 300m of the south-eastern site boundary along the western shore of Lussa Loch. The Kintyre 66 route follows the A83 on the western and B842/National Cycle Network 78 on the eastern Kintyre coast forming a loop around the Kintyre peninsula. The B843 passes 10km to the south between Campbeltown and Machrihanish. In the Landscape Experts report it is stated – ‘Significant landscape effects are limited to within 5 km, and visual effects to within 16km, of the site. While Members agree with the Landscape Expert’s opinion that this development will cause a significant adverse impact on the landscape character the Members disagree with the recommendation not to object to the application for the following reasons. Significant effects on landscape character are predicted in the LVIA for the host Landscape Character Type (LCT) 39: Plateau Moor and Forest – Argyll (Unit A) comprising significant (Major) direct effects within the site and significant indirect effects within 2km of the site during the construction phase. Similarly, during the operational phase significant (Major) direct effects were found within 2km and significant (Moderate) indirect effects within no more than 5km.’ The Landscape Expert is of the opinion that ‘Significant (Major) visual effects are predicted at Viewpoint 2: Lussa Loch Dam. Significant (Moderate) effects extend to over 15km from the proposal for the current baseline assessment and are predicted for 12 other viewpoints: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Significant effects are
Page 3
predicted for people within the settlements of Glenbarr (Moderate) and Machrihanish (Moderate).’ Significant sequential effects (Moderate) are predicted for the Tayinloan – Gigha Ferry Route. Significant sequential effects are also predicted for very localised sections of the Kintyre Way in the vicinity of Lussa Loch (Major) and a localised section of the route in the vicinity of Rhunahaorine Point (Moderate). The landscape expert goes on to say that ‘Significant (Major) effects are predicted for core paths between Campbeltown and Bridgend via Lussa Loch and significant (Moderate) effects are predicted for the core path between Machrihanish and Westport and the Glenbarr school route. Localised, significant effects are predicted from Core Paths (C088j, C088k, and C088l) as they traverse the western shore of Lussa. it could be argued that the sequential effects on the A83 and the promoted Kintyre 66 route have been underestimated, due to the susceptibility of the receptors being assessed as medium. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect believes it is likely there would be localised significant effects on the users of this route. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect also considers the significance of effects on road users in Viewpoint 4 could be judged as moderate (significant) rather than minor as currently reported, for the same reasons. The Planning and Renewable Energy Statement (PRES) accompanying Page 151 the EIAR appears in places misleading in the way it summarises the significant visual effects.’ The very large turbines of this proposal would be prominent in views from Gigha and from the Sound of Gigha and I consider that significant adverse effects would occur on the sense of remoteness and naturalness associated with the island and the immediate waters surrounding the island. The Significant Adverse effects are not limited to the local area but cover a large area to the west and in particular, within the West Kintyre Coast Local Landscape Area (LLA)’ ‘and it principally comprises settled and more intricately patterned coastal fringes with key special qualities likely to comprise a diverse landform and landcover pattern and views along the coast and out to sea to the west to Gigha, Islay and Jura.’ Members also agree with the landscape expert’s advice that ‘that there would be significant adverse effects on some of the key qualities of this LLA’. NPF4 Policy 11(e) (ii) (states that significant landscape and visual impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised’ effects. We submit that the very large turbines would be clearly seen from the Islay Ferry and that this proposal would have significant adverse effects on landscape and coastal character and on the character of the island of Gigha. Members of the Planning Committee submit that this is not a localised issue as the visual impact will cover an area larger than 9km and as such is contrary to NPF4 Policy 11(e)(ii). We the Planning Committee disagree with the recommendation not to object on the grounds of visual and landscape.
Page 4
In addition, visible aviation lighting would increase the duration of these adverse effects on views. (Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 9 January 2026, supplementary report number 1 dated 20 January 2026 and supplementary report number 2 dated 2 February 2026, submitted) Councillor Paul Kennedy left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 5. MR BILLY MCPHEE: REPOSITIONING OF 3 CHALETS (STATIC CARAVANS) (RETROSPECTIVE): AUCHENGOWER CARAVAN PARK, AUCHENGOWER PARK, COVE (REF: 25/00516/PP) The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1 which advised for further comments submitted by an objector. This application was made following planning enforcement. Retrospective planning permission is sought for the repositioning of three caravans (one holiday and two residential use), along with the erection of decking and formation of parking/turning areas for each caravan within an established caravan park. The application site is at the southwest of the Auchengower Park which, from 7 April 2017, has been a registered caravan site for both residential and holiday caravans. A total of 14 representations has been received, of which 12 are in objection and 2 are in support. There is also an objection from Cove and Kilcreggan Community Council. Although the application has raised many concerns locally given it is retrospective and required enforcement action, it is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the representations do not raise any complex issues and Officers consider that a hearing would not add value to the planning process. There is support within the policy provision of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) in terms of providing permanent affordable homes, supporting the tourism sector and sustaining an established business. It is acknowledged that the local landscape and ancient woodland has been affected by the development works. In approving the proposal, there can be significant gains to local biodiversity in terms of long-term woodland management, and the landscape harm can be somewhat mitigated. Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it was recommended that planning permission be approved as a minor departure to Development Plan Policy subject to the conditions, reasons and advisory notes appended to the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission as a minor departure to Development Plan Policy subject to the following conditions, reasons and advisory notes: 1. Approved Details Unless otherwise directed by any of the conditions below, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified in the application form dated 1 May 2025; the supporting information; and the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an
Page 5
amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 1 of 4 28.04.2025 Existing Site Plan 2 of 4 31.03.2025 Proposed Site Plan 3 of 4 28.05.2025 Chalet Floor Plan 4 of 4 10.04.2025 Landscape Plan 10B 20.01.2026 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Defining Use of Caravans: The occupation of caravans 1 and 3 hereby approved shall be permanent residences and the occupation of caravan 2 hereby approved shall be solely for holiday purposes and may not function as a permanent residence. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy having regard to the lawful use of the site. 3. External Lighting Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, all external lighting on the application site shall be operated, positioned and angled in compliance with the Scottish Government Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Lighting Energy Consumption” (March 2007). Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the immediate area from the creation of nuisance due to light pollution and to support the reduction of energy consumption. 4. Wildlife Surveys Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 1 month from the date of this decision, a detailed habitat and species survey shall be undertaken and the results, together with a scheme of enhancement measures, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The survey methodology shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the survey commences. The scheme of measures shall be implemented in full accordance with a timescale to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority or no later than 12 months from the date of this decision. Reason: To safeguard protected species and nature conservation interests and ensure the proposed biodiversity enhancement and landscape proposals are suitable. 5. Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, a final biodiversity statement, based on the findings of the species survey as
Page 6
per Condition 4, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (e.g. bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes, etc) shall be implemented in full no later than 12 months from the date of this decision. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season or no later than 12 months from the date of this decision. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot and Scottish Government Planning Guidance: Biodiversity as appropriate. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. 6. Non-Native Species Removal Plan Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a long-term Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Flora Management and Removal Plan, including a timetable for the maintenance works, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. The approved plan shall have been prepared by a suitably qualified person. Thereafter, the plan shall be fully adhered to, and any removal shall be implemented in accordance with the plan and the timetable. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity Note: This guidance from FLS may be of use Stem Guide (low res web copy) single pages 7. Landscaping scheme Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, a final scheme of landscape plan (based on the draft plan, received 20.01.2026) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a final planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i. Proposed soft landscaping including the final location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted alongside the road edge with no gaps (based on any recommendations from the protected species survey). ii. Final paint colours for the decking. iii. Details of any soils to be brought on to site, including the source. Note: it should be sourced from a nearby site with compatible soil type to reduce impact. iv. A programme for ongoing maintenance. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority within 6 months of the decision hereby issued.
Page 7
Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 8. Changes to caravans The permission hereby granted relates to the retention of the caravans existing on the site at the date of the application only and no replacement caravans shall be sited on the land unless, and until, details of the size, design and colour of such replacement caravans have first been approved in writing of the Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area. 9. Numbers of Caravans Not more than 3 caravans shall be sited on the land the subject of this permission at any one time and shall not be laid out other than in accordance with the approved Proposed Site Plan received by the Planning Authority on 28.05.2025. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the visual amenities of the area. 10. Surface Water Drainage Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, details of a sustainable urban drainage system compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Council’s Flood Advisors. The approved surface water drainage system shall be operational within a further 3 months of the scheme being approved and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate surface water drainage is implemented to prevent flooding elsewhere. 11. Parking The parking area for a minimum of 1 vehicle per unit shall be retained for such a dedicated purpose, unless the prior consent for variation is obtained in writing from the planning authority. Reason: To comply with car parking standards contained in Policy 40 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 February 2026 and supplementary report number 1 dated 18 February 2026, submitted)
Page 8
6. HIGH BRENFIELD WIND FARM LTD (ANGUS THOMSON): SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR ERECTION OF UP TO 10 WIND TURBINES WITH A MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 200 METRES: LAND APPROXIMATELY 2KM SOUTHWEST OF ARDRISHAIG (REF: 25/00984/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Section 36 Consultation for the proposed High Brenfield Wind Farm. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third-party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government. The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Argyll and Bute Council, having particular regard to the Objection raised by NatureScot and deferring to their expertise, object to the proposal on landscape and visual grounds, as the proposed wind farm would result in significant adverse landscape and visual effects on Knapdale National Scenic Area (NSA), Kilmartin Glen and Loch Fyne, contrary to NPF4 Policy 4, NPF Policy 11, LDP2 Policy 30 and LDP 2 Policy 70. 2. Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal in respect of potential impact of aircraft safety as set out in the NATS Safeguarding objection letter and therein referenced report dated 20.06.25. The objection by NATS confirms that the proposals are not currently considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 11 (aircraft safety). For the avoidance of doubt, should the NATS Objection to this application be withdrawn then the objection of the Planning Authority should also be regarded as withdrawn. 3. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion in respect to the Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (NPF4 Policies 5 and 11 and LDP2 30 and 79). Argyll and Bute Council object unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to the determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved, the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event that the application is referred to the DPEA for examination. 4. Archaeological Impact - Argyll and Bute Council has been unable to reach a conclusion within the time afforded in respect to Archaeological Impact as no response has been received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Argyll and Bute Council are therefore not in a position to confirm whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 21 and would recommend that the ECU consider these matters prior to determination.
Page 9
5. Argyll and Bute do not object on noise impact grounds, subject to the imposition of appropriate condition(s) to ensure operational noise and amplitude modulation matters are satisfactorily addressed, as recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant, Mott MacDonald, specified in their Review of Evidence – Noise, dated August 2025. 6. Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Public Access grounds, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. 7. Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Roads access or safety grounds, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, as specified by Transport Scotland in their consultation response to the ECU dated 31.07.25 and as set out in this report. 8. Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Flooding and/or Drainage impact grounds subject to the inclusion of the conditions as set out in the response of the Councils Flooding advisor dated 03.07.25. 9. Argyll and Bute Council in accordance with the views of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer Objects to the proposals as it is considered that the applicant has failed to provide necessary biodiversity evaluation and weighting to trees within the area of Ancient Woodland which will be adversely affected by the proposals. It should also be noted that any further necessary bat surveys must be undertaken in respect of these trees, and any European Protected Species mitigation measures submitted and agreed by the Scottish Ministers prior to the granting of any deemed planning consent to ensure any consent is issued in compliance with all legislative requirements. 10. Argyll and Bute Council do not object in relation to impact on peat or proposed peat management issues subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to address these matters as advised by SEPA and NatureScot in their consultation responses. 11. Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 February 2026, submitted) 7. MR NIKOLAY PETKOV: SITING OF 4 GLAMPING PODS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: BALKAN HOUSE, RAHANE (REF: 25/01118/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. Before proceeding with his presentation, he advised of an error in the report of handling which advised that additional information was outstanding from the Applicant with regard to the private access junction and visibility splays arising from the consultation response from the Area Roads Officer. He confirmed that since drafting the report it had come to light that the additional information had been received by the Planning Authority. The information submitted showed an access junction and visibility splays in accordance with requirements of the Area Roads Engineer as set out in their consultation response. On this basis it was recommended that the technical reason for refusal number 5, appended to the report of handling, be omitted from any refusal for planning permission. However, he advised that Officers still considered that the application was unacceptable on other
Page 10
policy grounds and as such the recommendation that planning permission be refused remained unchanged with the exception that the reason for refusal relating to access be omitted. The site is located within the Rahane settlement area as identified in Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) wherein Policy 1 states that development proposals will normally be acceptable subject to qualifying criteria. A total of 15 third party representations have been received, 14 objections and one neutral representation. It was the opinion of Planning Officers that a hearing would not add value to the planning process as the material considerations in relation to the proposal were not significantly complex. In this instance it is considered that the proposed development for site of 4 no. tourist accommodation cabins is contrary to policies of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and of LDP2 and that there were 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 Section 25 of the Act. It was recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 appended to the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following renumbered reasons: 1. Rahane is a minor settlement comprising exclusively residential development with no services / shops or other commercial land-uses located within this settlement and on this basis, the settlement has a tranquil, residential character. The introduction of a commercial tourist accommodation use comprising 4 no. 1-bedroom accommodation units, with capacity for small family accommodation, within an area of former residential garden area considered by the planning authority as capable of accommodating 1 no. 4-bedroom dwellinghouse, would result in an incompatible use relative to the surrounding homogenous residential land-use, that would be overly- intensive in nature and out of keeping with and detrimental to the established tranquil, residential character of this rural, residential settlement contrary to NPF 4 Policies 14 and 30 and LDP 2 Policies 01, 04, 05, 10 and 23. 2. The visual character of Rahane is made up largely by the pattern of built development in conjunction with natural landscape features. Existing houses are typically detached; average to relatively large in scale; traditional pitched-roof volumetric form and massing; and set within spacious and maturely landscaped gardens. There is a mix of external finishes including render, stone and timber cladding with roofs typically clad with natural or ‘artificial’ slate. The proposed siting of 4 no. single-storey, relatively small cabin type pods with mono-pitched roofs at a very shallow angle dispersed around the peripheries of the site would be completely out of keeping with the character of built development within this settlement in terms of layout, density, scale, massing and form to the detriment of visual character and amenity and inconsistent with the principles of ‘place-making’ contrary to NPF 4 Policies 14 and 30, and LDP 2 Policies 04, 05, 08, 10 and 23.
Page 11
3. It is considered that the proposed development would have a significantly adverse impact upon the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby houses by reason of loss of privacy through overlooking of private open amenity space and by general disturbance from noise generated by the short-term accommodation of 4 no. holiday cabins/pods, contrary to the provisions of NPF 4 Policy 14 and 30 and LDP 2 Policies 08, 14 and 23. 4. The site cannot be accessed by foot easily as there is no pavement from the bus stop on the nearby Shore Road and the road is two-way, and traffic volumes are not low. The proposal is therefore not easily accessible by public transport, foot or bicycle, and as such is contrary to the provisions of NPF 4 Policy 30 and LDP 2 Policy 23, as it fails to provide safe access via sustainable and active travel to nearby tourist facilities. 5. The planning application forms confirm that there are trees on or adjacent to the application site and the Design and Access Statement advises that “existing mature vegetation has been retained wherever possible.” However, the existing trees on the site are not shown on the application drawings (other than a diagrammatic indication of the extent of the existing tree canopy) and it is not indicated if any of the existing trees are to be felled or cut back. It is considered by the planning authority that additional information is required in order to allow a full assessment of impact upon trees, including their biodiversity value. This additional information would include a tree survey and tree impact plan clearly identifying any trees to be cut-back or felled. It is considered that the information submitted is inadequate to allow a full assessment of impact on trees and their biodiversity value. 6. The wastewater drainage for proposed development is proposed to connect into an existing private treatment plant with an outflow to an existing watercourse, that has been sized for 2 no. 4-bedroom houses. One of these 4-bedroom houses, “Balkan House,” has been erected and connected to the private drainage system. On the basis of the information submitted, it is not considered that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the planning authority that the existing private treatment system has adequate capacity to serve the existing 4-bedroom dwellinghouse plus the proposed 4 no. 1-bedroom tourist accommodation cabins; and as such the proposal is likely to have adverse impact on environmental, amenity or health problems contrary to NPF 4 Policy 18 and LDP 2 Policy 60. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 February 2026, submitted) 8. GB WIND FARM LTD: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION: GIANT'S BURN WIND FARM, COMPRISING FIVE TURBINES UP TO 200 M TIP HEIGHT, TWO TURBINES UP TO 180 M TIP HEIGHT, A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: APPROXIMATELY 1.3KM NORTHWEST OF DUNOON (REF: 25/01342/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Section 36 Consultation for Giant’s Burn Wind Farm. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third-party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government.
Page 12
The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Following advice from NatureScot, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and the Council’s Landscape Consultant Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on landscape and visual impact grounds, as the proposed wind farm would result in extensive significant adverse landscape and visual effects, contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30. 2. Following advice from SEPA and NatureScot Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on deep peat and priority peatland habitat grounds, as there are significant outstanding matters contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30, 73 and 79. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and SEPA and NatureScot, the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to SEPA and NatureScot (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. 3. Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal on Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment as there are significant outstanding matters contrary to NPF4 Policy 11, NPF Policy 4 and LDP2 Policy 30 and 79. The applicant has not provided an updated report as requested by the ECU. Argyll and Bute Council object unless this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of Ironside Farrar prior to the determination of this application by the ECU. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to Ironside Farrar (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. 4. Following advice from Historic Environment Scotland (HES), Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal the based on cultural heritage impacts as there are significant effects on the setting of the Scheduled Monument Dunoon Castle and inconclusive effects on other scheduled monuments contrary to the provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 19. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and HES the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to HES (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. 5. Following advice from NATS and Glasgow Airport, Argyll and Bute Council object to the proposal the based on aviation impacts contrary to NPF4 Policy 11 and LDP2 Policy 30 and 43. Should this matter be satisfactorily resolved between ECU and NATS/Glasgow Airport the Council’s objection would be withdrawn. Should this issue not be resolved the Council would defer to NATS/Glasgow Airport (or any other body appointed by the ECU to provide expert guidance on this matter) in the event of an examination by the DPEA. 6. Argyll and Bute do not object on noise impact grounds, subject to the inclusion of an Operational Noise and Amplitude Modulation Planning Conditions, as recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant, Mott MacDonald, specified in their Review of Evidence – Noise, dated January 2026.
Page 13
7. Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Public Access grounds, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. 8. Argyll and Bute Council do not object on Roads grounds, subject to the inclusion of relevant conditions, as specified by Argyll and Bute Council’s Roads Service and Transport Scotland in their consultation response to the ECU. 9. Argyll and Bute Council requests that the recommendations of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer and NatureScot are considered by the ECU. Specifically with reference to the need for mitigation (turbine feathering) for bats and surveys and mitigation for migratory salmonids, should consent be granted. 10. Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent, should it be granted. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 9 February 2026, submitted) 9. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ3 2025/26 A report providing an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ3 2025/26 was considered. Decision The Committee reviewed and agreed the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 28 January 2026, submitted) Councillor Graham Hardie left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 10. PLANNING AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT 2025 - OBJECTION TO ENERGY CONSENT APPLICATIONS A report updating Members on new processes around objections to applications for energy consent following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 was before the Committee for information. The new arrangements apply to applications for consent under section 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 3 February 2026, submitted)