Mr and Mrs Scott Raeburn: Erection of Tearoom with 4 Apartments on Upper Floors: Former Susy's Tearoom, Tighnabruaich (Ref: 25/00181/Pp)
Argyll and Bute Council · 21 January 2026
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 21 January 2026 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 Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 25/00181/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr and Mrs Scott Raeburn Proposal: Erection of Tearoom with 4 Apartments on Upper Floors Site Address: Former Susy's Tearoom, Tighnabruaich DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of restaurant with 4 apartments on upper floors • Installation of bio disc treatment plant with connection to existing outfall pipe • Formation of vehicular access from public car parking area • Formation of five on-site parking spaces (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water supply (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be granted as a minor departure to Development Plan Policy and subject to the conditions, reasons and advisory notes appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Environmental Health Service (memoranda dated 18th February 2025 and 8th April 2025) No objections subject to conditions and advisory notes relating to food and health legislation; external lighting; control of construction activities and noise; control of operational activities, noise and cooking odours; commercial waste; and contaminated land.
Page 2
Scottish Water (letter dated 20th February 2025) There are no objections to the proposal – there is currently sufficient capacity in the Tighnabruaich Water Treatment Works to service the development. However, please note that further investigations may require to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to Scottish Water. According to their records, there is no public wastewater infrastructure in the vicinity of the proposed development and, therefore, the applicant is advised to investigate private treatment options. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (e-mail dated 25th February 2025) It is noted that the site is well elevated above the 1 in 200-year flood level plus climate change uplift with an allowance for freeboard. As such, there are no objections to the proposal on flood risk grounds. It is also noted that investigations have identified that asbestos fragments and asbestos contaminated soils are present on the site. Any persons involved in the removal of asbestos construction and demolition waste or waste soils from the site must ensure it is characterised and consigned to an appropriately permitted or licensed facility in accordance with their Duty of Care and relevant waste management legislation. Any proposal to treat waste soils on site is likely to require a waste management licence. There is a Scottish Water sewerage network pumping station within approximately 115 metres of the development site. As per SEPA’s standing advice on wastewater drainage, "Sites of all scales, and particularly trade sites, should be required to connect to the public sewer unless evidence is provided to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that this would not be viable. At the discretion of the Planning Authority, the applicant may also be required to actively engage with Scottish Water to seek growth provision/adoption of the scheme." For information, the Kyles of Bute is a designated Shellfish Water Protected Area (SWPA) and any discharge will require appropriate treatment and authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulation 2011 (as amended). The planning application makes reference to the discharge of treated effluent to sea using legacy pipework but no detail is provided. Any new discharge will require to be through a constructed and adequately maintained sea outfall to a location below mean low water springs (MLWS). JBA Consulting Ltd – Flood Risk Assessor (report dated 25th February 2025) The site lies outwith the indicative limits of fluvial and surface water flooding, as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The coastal flood extent overlaps marginally with the southern region of the site. With reference to the Coastal Flood Boundary dataset, the 200 year still water level is 3.97 mAOD. Including an additional 0.86m allowance for climate change and a further 0.6m freeboard, Finished Floor Levels for the building should be set to a minimum of 5.43 mAOD. With reference to the site plan, it is evident that the proposed site sits at an elevation above 6.5 mAOD; hence, this is acceptable.
Page 3
Area Roads Engineer (report dated 25th March 2025 and 15th November 2025) The layout as initially submitted identified the provision of six on-site parking spaces and this was considered to be unacceptable on the grounds that this number of spaces was insufficient to serve the four flats, the patrons of the tearoom and the staff. Additionally, the on-site spaces were to be accessed individually from the Council car park thus preventing the use of each directly adjoining space within the car park and this was not considered to be an acceptable arrangement. An amended site layout was received during the processing of the application, which showed the creation of a single access and egress point and the provision of five on- site parking spaces. The Area Roads Engineer objected to this arrangement as it continued to be lacking in the appropriate number of spaces. (D) HISTORY: Planning Permissions 98/01657/DET, 04/01680/DET and 08/02143/DET were approved on 05.02.2019, 08.10.2004 and 29.01.2009 respectively for the retention of a static caravan at the application site. Planning Permission (ref: 22/00223/PP) was refused on 5th February 2024 for the erection of a restaurant with 4 flats above; a separate building to the rear incorporating three staff studios; and the installation of a bio disc sewage treatment plant. (E) PUBLICITY: Neighbour notification (closing date: 28.02.2025) and advertised under Regulation 20 Advert (closing date: 14.03.2025) (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Objections have been received from the following five sources: Paul Paterson, 2 Manor Way, Tighnabruaich (comments received on 07.02.2025, 15.05.2025, 03.07.2025 and 15.09.2025) Mrs Christine Paton, Lochee House, Tighnabruaich (comments received on 03.03.2025, 09.03.2025 and 12.03.2025) Lloyd Jones, LRJ Planning, Pen-y-Rhiw, Newport on behalf of Alexander Malcolm, The Firs, Tighnabruaich (letters dated 19.02.2025 and 04.03 2025) Heather Whyte, Roseville, Tighnabruaich (comments on received 03.03.2025) Thomas Whyte, Roseville, Tighnabruaich (comments on received 03.03.2025) Mr John Paton, Lochee House, Tighnabruaich (comments received on 05.03.2025, 09.03.2025 and 12.03.2025) (ii) Summary of issues raised:
Page 4
Design, Scale and Massing A summary of the key points submitted by objectors: • The length, breadth and height of the proposed building are considered to be excessive and out of proportion to the previous tearoom • The overall design is considered to lack any credible reasoning, planning, living and functional sense • The design style is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings and would look out of place in the typical West Highland architecture of the area, which is stone built, pitched roof and appropriate glazing. It would appear alien and contrived within the street scene • The proposal fails to respect the simple form, design and character of surrounding development • The current proposal is materially more intrusive, visually dominant and harmful than the previous scheme that was refused in February 2024 • There is minimal separation distance off the boundaries and the development fills the whole site, resulting in a cramped form of development that is not in keeping with the settlement pattern Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Parking and Road Safety There are a number of objectors that are concerned about parking provision and general road safety. A summary of the key points includes: • The proposal would generate parking from customers/patrons, staff and holiday letting patrons and the scheme does not provide a sufficient number of spaces within the site boundary • The plans do not illustrate how cars and delivery vehicles can access, park and turn safely within the site • There are no disabled parking spaces for patrons and the proposal is based on use of the Argyll and Bute Council owned public car and coach park • The adjacent car park is busy during tourist season and this will lead to parking overspilling on to the road and increase conflict with cars and pedestrians • Assuming that coaches still use the car park, a significant percentage of capacity for cars (perhaps 30%) would be needed for the residential element of this development. It would also not be in the public interest for eight to twelve spaces to be used on a permanent basis for a private developer
Page 5
• The car park has an overnight parking restriction so cars from overnight guests could not use the car park. If the restriction was lifted then it could create an issue with motorhome parking • The car park will not support increase in demand (in their opinion) in its current unmaintained state and will suffer further disrepair due to the additional traffic and use by construction traffic • In the past residential use has been ruled out (see 98/01657/DET) when a caravan was refused permission as it did not have a separate curtilage, access and parking arrangements • Concern is expressed that the rear of the proposed development would encroach onto the driveway and access to the properties to the sides of the development site in addition to causing great difficulty with access to the local authority recycling area and coach park. It would also be highly susceptible to creating dangers for other traffic flow from vehicles and that of public access and right of way • The car park is a turning point for regular coaches visiting the area and, if difficulties in turning are created as a result of the proposal, there is concern that this could result in the potential loss of much needed tourism to the area Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Residential Amenity - Overlooking/Loss of Daylight A number of objectors including direct neighbours, have raised issues of overlooking, loss of daylight and impact on privacy. Key points: • Concern is expressed that the proposed building, by virtue of its large size and shape, would significantly reduce the amount of light to other properties in the area. A daylight and sunlight assessment has not been provided • Concern is expressed that the second floor with balconies would look into next door neighbours and would be over-intrusive looking out onto the public walkway and coach park • It is understood that the building has risen from 0.8m above the ridge of Roseville to the west to 1.2m and this has increased concerns of the existing dwellinghouse being overshadowed by this new higher structure • Concern is expressed that the second tier appears to sit further beyond Roseville than the original single-storey tearoom and would be higher. It is contended that this would block even more light into this property and would potentially increase its energy bills • The height and location of the rear section of the plans raises concerns for the owners of Roseville with regards to privacy as the holiday
Page 6
apartments would have full views into their garden where their two children play • There would appear to be a side window overlooking Roseville and, if the balconies were to be open-sided, then privacy becomes a factor. Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Residential Amenity – Noise, Disturbance and Odour A number of objectors, including direct neighbours, have raised issues of noise, odour and disturbance from cooking smells; the proximity of the stainless-steel flue pipe to the bedroom windows of the adjoining dwelling; and the significant number of people coming and going, including deliveries early in the morning. Concern is expressed that the intention to operate the proposed development during the day, evening and night would create a noise pollution infringement. There is no disclosure of operating hours, times and allowances regarding cut off periods, etc. The title deeds specifically rule out the sale of alcohol on the land but there would be scope for ‘Bring-Your-Own-Bottle’ events which may result in noise and antisocial behaviours. Limits on opening hours would, however, help to address this. Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Foul Drainage and Water Supply Concern is expressed that the application fails to show any means and methods of wastewater treatment and the mention of a bio disc system means nothing without details of the type, designs, risks, plans, etc. It is contended that it is unlawful to discharge into the sea. Certain discharges of sewage from non-domestic premises constitute trade effluent in terms of the Sewage Scotland Act and other acts that pertain to sewage and discharging into the sea. The proposed development mentions connecting onto neighbouring properties and it is queried how a study and research have been done to make such plans. If the connection to the public water main requires to be laid through land outwith the application site, the developer must provide evidence of formal approval from the affected landowner(s) by way of a deed of servitude. As the proposed development would require formal approval from the nearest neighbours as well as from Argyll and Bute Council who own the car/coach park next to this development, there is a lack of evidence and authority that the developer has such permissions. Officer response: These issues are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below.
Page 7
Contaminated Land It is contended that the previous tearoom building on the site contained asbestos and it is alleged that the burning of asbestos and other combustible material was associated with the demolition of this structure. It is also contended that the landowner has so far not provided certificates demonstrating the correct disposal of asbestos from the site and fact-based evidence of appropriate ground soil works. There is no contaminated land survey submitted by the applicant. Officer response: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Biodiversity There are concerns about biodiversity and that there have been no ecological surveys. There are no plans to enhance biodiversity given there is no room for landscaping. The proposed development lacks any biodiversity plans, wildlife and plant assessments and environmental assessments. Officer response: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Waste Concern is expressed that there is an absence of allocated space for waste storage, particularly given the identified capacity of the proposed facility (seventy covers) and the likely significant amount of waste that would be generated. Officer response: This issue is addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Legal Issues Concern is expressed that the northernmost boundary of the application site has been drawn beyond the land belonging to the tearoom as shown in its title deeds. Mention is made of the potential existence of burdens on the land referred to as Susy's Tearoom (ref: ARG15953). It is not known whether these burdens continue and whether they are still legally binding. Various burdens are referred to that it is contended would affect the ability of the proposed premises to operate: the north side and east side of the land have to be fenced off; any building has to have the approval of the person that originally sold the land or their successors; any building should not be a nuisance or hurtful to the amenity of the land and neighbours; and the sale of alcohol or fish and/or chips is prohibited. It is mentioned that the title deeds make no reference to access rights to the site and it is possible that rights of access over the Council-owned car park may
Page 8
have lapsed as a result of the passage of time (approximately seven years) since a business has operated on the site. It is suggested that time be given to allow for a closer look at this issue and its potential implications regarding this application and its lawfulness. Officer response: These issues are essentially legal in nature and are not considered to have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the case. Electricity Substation A substation sits behind the application site and it is contended that the impact on the stability of the substation foundation and access to the structure (including safety risks, assessments, etc.) may need to be addressed. There is no mention of how the noise from the substation may affect the users of the development. Officer response: The potential impact of the proposed development on the stability of the substation foundation is an issue that would more appropriately be investigated between the applicant/developer and Scottish and Southern Electricity. The second issue is one that was raised at another site in Tighnabruaich in relation to the erection of a dwellinghouse adjacent to an existing substation (application refs: 11/01978/PP and 15/00295/PP). In that instance, a condition was attached that involved an identification of the noise levels generated by the operation of the sub-station together with an assessment of whether the noise was likely to give rise to complaints given the nature of the proposal. Any remedial measures that were deemed necessary would then be formulated and this is considered to be an appropriate means of addressing this issue in respect of the current proposal. Disabled Access/Facilities The proposal does not show how disabled people will gain access in and out of the building and to the proposed letting properties. Their indoor layout does not show a disabled toilet. Officer response: Internal layout and design is not a Planning matter and would be dealt with under the Building Warrant process. The outside provision of disabled parking bays and access to the building are addressed in the assessment contained in Section P and Appendix A below. Fire Escapes It is contended that there is a lack of fire escapes for those who will be in the second and third floor levels. Officer response: This issue would be dealt with under the Building Warrant process. Lack of Need Concern is expressed that Tighnabruaich has enough catering/drinking establishments without adding more.
Page 9
Officer response: The issue of the lack of need for a development does not have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the case. Storage of Boat The applicant has placed a boat under a fixed cover on part of the application site with the intention of carrying out repairs. This is considered to breach the requirements for any fixture being in-situ without official planning permission and local authority permission. It is contended that the owner/occupier must remove this boat building project with urgency as its ongoing presence would cause an unsightly mess, an obstruction to road users and to neighbours, a breach of health & safety and a hindrance to gaining access for soil samples to be taken for the said planning application. Officer response: This matter is being investigated separately and it is not considered to have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the current application. Construction Compound If permission for the proposed building was to be granted, it is contended that builders, their equipment and vehicles would be placed and parked within the public car and coach park, which it is considered would be unlawful and would breach the planning and parking regulations. It is questioned whether the Local Authority would be willing to give up and sacrifice all of the coach park, bottle bank, substation and neighbour rear parking areas for these purposes. Officer response: This matter is not considered to have a material bearing upon the Planning aspects of the current application. There are certain circumstances where a compound for the duration of the construction period does not require Planning Permission and the use of land that is not in the ownership of the applicant/developer for this purpose would require negotiation between the relevant parties. Representations from the public are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) Sustainability Checklists TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No
Page 10
It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the agent has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development in the submitted checklists, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact, etc: Supporting Information is published in full on the planning application file and is available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 obligation required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes
Page 11
NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 28 – Retail NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Infrastructure Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 82 – Contaminated Land
Page 12
(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Design Guides (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No Objections to the application have been received from a total of five sources and, in terms of the ‘Scheme of Administration and Delegations’ contained in the Council’s Constitution (2025), this number is less than the eleven that is required in order for the PPSL Committee to consider a proposal. The reason that this particular application is before Members results from the recommendation of the Roads Department that Planning Permission be refused on the grounds of a lack of parking spaces and the Planning Department’s opinion that there are mitigating circumstances such that an approval can be justified as a minor departure to Development Plan policy. In considering the benefits of holding a pre-determination hearing in this particular case, it is the opinion of the Department that the representations that have been received, the views that have been expressed by consultees and the Officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report provide a sufficient level of information to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations pertaining to the development. It is, therefore, not considered that the proposal raises any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Local Landscape Area Potential Contaminated Land (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area
Page 13
Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better-quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc.: ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☒Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Site and Surroundings The application site, which is considered to be brownfield land, has an area of approximately 700m2 and the plot historically was a tearoom (Susy’s Tearoom) which was single storey with a pitched roof (similar to the neighbouring houses). It sits on the Shore Road near to, but not within, the village centre and is close to the pier where the Waverly passengers disembark and embark. None of the adjacent buildings are listed and it is not a Conservation Area. The Susy’s Tearoom building was removed in 2020/2021 and the land on which it stood has been vacant since then.
Page 14
The immediately surrounding area contains a small single storey bungalow to the west (Roseville), a one-and-a-half storey dwelling to the north-east (The Firs) and another modern one-and-a-half storey dwelling further to the east (Lochee House). All of these houses have a white render external wall finish and concrete tiled roofs of varying profile. Directly adjacent to the site in a northerly and easterly direction is a large public car park. Proposed Development The application is for the erection of a building that would accommodate a new café/restaurant on the ground floor and the introduction of 4 self-catering flatted apartments with balconies on the upper floors. The proposed building would be approximately 8 metres in height and would have a flat roof. The top mezzanine level would be stepped back/recessed. The predominant external wall finish would be white render but the top floor would feature Eternit panel grey cladding. Settlement and Spatial Strategy In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, the site is located within the ‘Key Rural Settlement’ of Tighnabruaich and the assessment criteria contained in Policy 01 include ensuring that the development is of an appropriate scale and fit and that it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape. A previous application was refused due to overdevelopment and the scale not being appropriate. The current proposal involves a reduction in the scale of built development through the removal of the staff accommodation block and a significant number of design amendments have been made. It is considered that the site has the capacity to accommodate this revised scale and design with regard to all material planning considerations and, as such, the proposal represents an appropriate form of development that is consistent with the key aims of the Settlement Strategy within LDP2 Policy 01. NPF4 Policy 9 part (a) supports development on brownfield land such as the application site. Tourism /Commercial Policies The proposed café/restaurant is at the edge of the village centre and it has an established use as Class 3. There are no issues with providing a replacement café/restaurant at this location of a very similar scale and size as the previous one. The adopted Local Development Plan Policy 23 relates to tourist facilities and accommodation and NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to support tourism development on suitable sites and they are both relevant in relation to the proposal for 4 self-catering units (which is not a previous use). Overall, the proposal meets the criteria in LDP Policies 01 and 23 and NPF4 Policies 9 and 30 and is acceptable in principle. Design and Layout The revised design and layout are now considered acceptable given the removal of the staff block and the changes to the fenestration including windows and the location of
Page 15
the flue. The Art Deco style has been avoided to now offer a modern fresh look that fits better with the Scottish vernacular. Flood and Water Management There are no issues relating to flooding as the finished floor levels of the building are above the flood risk zone and no objections have been submitted by SEPA or the Council’s Flood Advisor. Biodiversity There are no protected site or species on this site and it is brownfield land with no trees and some limited scrub vegetation. NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to enhance biodiversity on application sites and, whilst there is limited space for landscaping, other biodiversity enhancement measures could be included as set out in both NatureScot and new Scottish Government guidance and a condition is recommended to ensure biodiversity enhancement measures are included. Contaminated Land It had previously been thought that the applicant had appropriately disposed of asbestos from the demolition of the former tearoom building but it has since transpired that this is not necessarily the case. The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer has recommended that a condition can satisfy any concerns in relation to contaminants potentially remaining from the asbestos and to ensure that there is no harm to human health. It is a strict pre-start condition and it would ensure the proposal is compliant with the relevant Development Plan policies. Residential Amenity of Neighbours Matters relating to the potential noise, smells, construction noise, opening hours, overlooking, privacy of neighbours are all considered in detail in the assessment section in Appendix 1 below and it is concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity subject to the attaching of suitably worded conditions. Access and Parking The Roads Department are recommending refusal as they do not consider the parking spaces in the large neighbouring car park to represent a suitable provision and are of the view that the number of proposed on-site spaces is insufficient to meet the increase in parking demand resulting from the proposed development. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the use of the public car park by patrons and members of staff of the proposed café/restaurant can be accepted as this was the situation that existed for decades in association with the previous Susy’s Tearoom. Having regard to the parking standards in LDP2 Policy 40, the number of spaces to be provided in relation to the four two-bedroomed units would be eight. As five on-site spaces are proposed, this represents a shortfall of three spaces. In the particular circumstance of this case, it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted as a minor departure to policy and the details of the mitigating factors are set out in Section (S) below.
Page 16
Infrastructure The proposal identifies connection to the public water main and Scottish Water has confirmed that the site is not within an area covered by the public sewerage system. As such, a bio disc foul drainage treatment plant is proposed and, whilst some concerns have been expressed by objectors over the detail of this, such matters would be controlled via a separate licence from SEPA. The main factor to consider in relation to planning is whether the system can be accommodated on the site and this has been satisfactorily demonstrated. The site plan identifies the provision of a bin store and this is something that can be conditioned to ensure final details are submitted for approval and that the arrangements are constructed prior to the premises coming into use. Conclusion The revised scheme is considered to satisfactorily address the reasons for refusal on the previous application in relation to the overdevelopment of the site, the design detailing and the lack of in-curtilage car parking. The Roads Department have recommended refusal given the non-compliance with LDP2 Policy 40 but it is considered that the shortage of three parking spaces can be considered as a minor departure to policy given the other benefits of the proposal. There is significant support given in the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 to a development such as this, which is on a brownfield, infill site within a settlement and which involves the replacement of a long-established food and drink enterprise whose built fabric and design had become somewhat dated. The proposal is, therefore, recommended for approval subject to conditions. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: Please see Section (S) below. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: Policy 40 of LDP2 states that off-street vehicle parking shall be provided for development in accordance with the car parking standards set out in Table 5 on Pages 67 and 68 of the Written Statement. The current proposal incorporates five dedicated car parking spaces within the red line application site. The Roads Department considers that the provision of five on- site spaces is insufficient to serve the four self-catering apartments, the patrons of the café/restaurant, disabled persons and members of staff. A number of objections have also been received relating to the matter of parking and concern has been expressed that the car park does not have the capacity to support the additional parking demand.
Page 17
There are reservations that, if the overnight parking restriction was to be lifted to accommodate overnight parking for the self-catering units and members of staff then this would also encourage motorhome parking. There is concern that the spaces required would take up a significant proportion of the car park. In determining the extent of the shortfall in parking spaces associated with the current proposal, it is considered reasonable to accept the use of the public car park by patrons and members of staff of the proposed café/restaurant as this was the situation that existed for decades in association with the previous Susy’s Tearoom. Having regard to the parking standards in LDP2 Policy 40, the number of spaces to be provided in relation to the four two-bedroomed units would be eight. As five on-site spaces are proposed, this represents a shortfall of three spaces. In the particular circumstance of this case, it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted as a minor departure to policy given the following wider considerations: • The presence of a large public car park immediately adjacent to the site and there is no evidence to suggest that there is insufficient capacity when the previous tearoom operated • The café/restaurant previously had no parking spaces on the site and the public car park was used by patrons and staff. There is no change in the floorspace of the café/restaurant so no change in trip profile and the use is lawful and established • Whilst acknowledging that the introduction of the 4 new self-catering apartments would intensify the overall site usage, the shortfall of three on- site parking spaces is considered to be relatively small and, given the active and sustainable travel options set out below, it is not considered that this level of shortfall would result in such clear and demonstrable harm as to warrant a refusal of the application • The aspirations that are inherent in NPF4 Policy 13 and Policy 33 of LDP2 highlight the importance of walking, cycling and proximity to public transport links. Public transport links including bus stops and the local pier (where passengers embark and disembark the PS Waverley) are within walking distance of the site and the agent has confirmed that a secure bike rack will be provided for customers and staff • The site previously was a café so it is brownfield land being brought back into use. The facilities on offer need to be expanded as the café/restaurant would not be commercially viable on its own so it is considered that the scheme as currently presented would bring economic benefit to the area (as opposed to a housing development, for instance) and would remove the blight of this brownfield site Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not fully meet the provisions of Policy 40 of LDP2 in terms of off-street parking, the mitigating factors detailed above are of sufficient materiality for the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan.
Page 18
(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 05/01/2026 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 06/01/2026 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 19
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00181/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 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 4th February 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 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 General Arrangement – Site Location Plan Drawing No. HG A3 L(9-)P901 - 05/02/2025 General Arrangement – Site Location Plan Drawing No. HG A3 L(9-)P901A - 07/02/2025 General Arrangements – Site Layout Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P002C C 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Ground & 1st Floor Plans Drawing No. GN GA L (--) P003B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Ground Floor Plan Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P004B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – First and Mezzanine Floor Plans Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P005B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Sections Drawing No. GN GA L (--) P006B B 12/06/2025 General Arrangements – Proposed Elevations Drawing No. HG GA L (--) P008B B 12/06/2025
Page 20
General Arrangements – Proposed Elevations Drawing No. GN GA L (--) P009C C 12/06/2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Contaminated Land Assessment Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on the site, a scheme will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on the site. No work on the site shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Planning Authority, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with relevant authoritative guidance including Planning Advice Note (PAN) 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and must include: a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model/preliminary risk assessment, including a ground investigation strategy for any phases of ground investigation proposed to be undertaken (exploratory, main or supplementary). The desk study and the scope and method of recommended investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, and d of this condition. Should the desk study show the need for further assessment, this will be undertaken in the following sequence: b) A detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of the risks such contamination presents c) Development and agreement of a remedial strategy (if required) to treat/ remove contamination ensuring the site is made suitable for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works and proposed verification plan) d) Submission of a verification report for any agreed remedial actions detailing and evidencing the completion of these works. Written confirmation from the Planning Authority that the scheme has been implemented and completed shall be required by the Developer before any development hereby approved commences. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.
Page 21
Reason: In order to ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed. 3. Short Term Holiday Accommodation The residential accommodation units hereby approved shall be used for short-term holiday occupancy only and not as a main residence and shall not be occupied by any family, group or individual for a cumulative period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained by the Site Operator and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy to satisfy the provisions of the Development Plan. 4. Noise Assessment and Management Plan for Construction Operations Prior to the commencement of the development, a Noise Management Plan relative to the construction phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The document shall incorporate the following: i. An identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance that may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the construction of the development, including noise/ vibration, dust, surface runoff and any temporary lighting. This should cover all aspects of the proposal (e.g. ground works, access improvements and construction of building and any associated facilities) ii. For all potential sources of nuisance, the applicant will be required to provide a management plan that incorporates details of the suitable control measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction works do not cause a loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. Such details shall include (but not be limited to) the intended hours of working; the movement of vehicles into, within and out of the site; the use of plant; and the storage of equipment and materials on the site Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 5. Hours of Construction Working The hours of working at the site during the construction of the development hereby approved shall be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. No construction work shall take place at the site on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity.
Page 22
6. Noise Assessment and Management Plan for Operational Activities Prior to the development coming into use, a Noise Management Plan relative to the operational phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The document shall incorporate the following: i. A noise assessment undertaken in terms of BS4142:2014+A1:2019 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’, the scope of which shall include the extraction unit for the commercial premises ii. Details of the means by which extraneous noise will be mitigated to ‘Best Practicable Means’. The Noise Rating Criteria to be achieved during the day (0700-1900hrs) will be NR35 and will be NR25 during the evening/night (1900- 0700hrs) iii. Details of the opening hours of the café/restaurant and the timing of deliveries and collections to and from the site Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the development shall be operated in accordance with the approved Noise Management Plan. Reason: In order to ensure that acceptable noise and vibration levels are not exceeded 7. Odour Assessment and Mitigation Measures Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed specification regarding the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The specification shall incorporate the following: i. Precise details of the location of equipment used for the cooking and heating of food ii. Information (including manufacturer’s details) on canopies, grease filters, rates of air movement over the canopy, make–up air, air disposal points, etc. The air disposal points should terminate at least 1 metre above any opening windows Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the system for the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved details prior to the premises being brought into use for the preparation and sale of food and it shall, thereafter, be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the agreed specification. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the immediate area and prevent the creation of odour nuisance. 8. Arrangements for the Storage and Collection of Waste Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the proposed arrangements for the storage and collection of waste shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The arrangements shall be implemented in accordance with the approved requirements prior to the development being brought into use and shall
Page 23
thereafter be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to accord with the principles of sustainable waste management within NPF4 Policy 12 and LDP2 Policy 63. 9. 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. 10. Details of Access and Parking Prior to the commencement of the development, the following details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority: i. The location, design and materials of any proposed walls, fences and gates ii. The means by which direct access between any of the proposed parking spaces and the adjoining public car park is to be prevented iii. The materials to be used in the surfacing of the car parking spaces and turning court iv. The layout of the access point into the turning court from the public car park Prior to the development being brought into use, the parking spaces and the access into the turning court shall be formed in full accordance with the details approved under points (ii), (iii) and (iv) above. Thereafter, the parking spaces and turning court shall be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interests of road safety and in order to ensure that there is a level of parking provision that is commensurate with the scale of the development. 11. Biodiversity Enhancement Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a biodiversity statement 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 before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. 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 following the development first being brought into use.
Page 24
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. 12. Surface Water Drainage Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, 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. The approved surface water drainage system shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate surface water drainage is implemented to prevent flooding elsewhere. 13. Electricity Substation Prior to the commencement of the development, a report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Environmental Health Service and Scottish and Southern Electricity. This report shall incorporate the following: i. An assessment of the noise levels generated by the operation of the existing electricity sub-station, together with an assessment of whether the noise is likely to give rise to complaints. This assessment should be carried out using the methodology detailed in BS4142:2014+A1:2019 ‘Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound’. In accordance with Planning Advice Note 1/2011, as part of the assessment, consideration must be given to any likely increase in noise levels that may reasonably be expected in the foreseeable future from the operation of the electricity sub-station ii. Using the findings of the above assessment, the developer must then identify the measures needed to mitigate any potential adverse effects of noise for the patrons of the café/restaurant and the occupiers of the short-term holiday letting units. Examples of suitable mitigation measures are detailed in Planning Advice Note 1/2011. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the building shall be constructed having regard to the mitigation measures included within the approved report. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the proposed building having regard to the provisions of Policy 14 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (2024). 14. Bicycle Storage A facility for the storage of cycles, the details of which shall have been previously submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, shall be provided within the application site prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the approved cycle storage shall be retained in perpetuity for this dedicated purpose.
Page 25
Reason: In the interests of facilitating the use of cycles by the patrons of the building hereby approved in accordance with the provisions of National Planning Framework 4 Policy 13 ‘Sustainable Transport’.
Page 26
ADVISORY NOTES 1. The attention of the applicant/developer is drawn to the contents of the letter dated 20th February 2025 from Scottish Water and the e-mail from SEPA dated 25th February 2025, both of which are in the list of documents relative to the application in the Council’s Public Access System 2. The attention of the applicant/developer is drawn to the information on the licensing requirements for short-term lets that is contained in the Argyll and Bute Council website and that can be accessed by using the following link: Short term lets licence | Argyll and Bute Council 3. The Environmental Health Service has provided the following advice: a. As a food premises, the proposal will be subject to the requirements of Food Law. The applicant/developer is strongly recommended to contact the Environmental Health Service to discuss the kitchen layout and proposed foods to be made to ensure compliance with the law and good practice in order to protect public health. In any case, the applicant is required to register as a food business b. The applicant should be fully aware of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) and its implications on client duties, etc c. It is very strongly recommended that appropriate measures should be taken in the design of all buildings and their construction to inhibit the roosting and nesting of gulls. Such measures are intended to reduce nuisance to, and intimidation of, persons living, working and visiting the development d. It is the intention of the applicant/developer to install a drainage system at the proposed development by means of connection to a new bio disc foul drainage treatment plant with discharge to a body of water. The system of drainage provided will require to be in accordance with the relevant Building (Scotland) Acts, and this will be a matter for consideration by the Building Standards Section in their processing of a Building Warrant application e. Discharge of effluent from the treatment plant into “controlled waters” (all inland watercourses, coastal and ground waters) will require a discharge consent to be put in place by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). If this agency is satisfied with the proposed provision for drainage, the Environmental Health Service would offer no objection to this arrangement f. Having regard to the formulation of the Noise Management Plan referred to in Condition 6 above, it is recommended that deliveries and collections to and from the site are not to be carried out between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00.
Page 27
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00181/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), the site is located within the ‘Key Rural Settlement’ of Tighnabruaich and the assessment criteria contained in LDP2 Policy 01 include ensuring that development is of an appropriate scale and fit and that it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape. 1.2. A previous application (ref: 22/00223/PP) was refused, inter alia, for reasons of overdevelopment and its scale not being appropriate. The current proposal has reduced the scale of the development by removing the staff accommodation to allow for on-site parking. It is considered that the site has the capacity to accommodate this revised scale of development with regard to all material planning considerations and, as such, it is now considered to represent an appropriate proposal that is consistent with the key aims of the Settlement Strategy in LDP2 Policy 01. 1.3. NPF4 Policy 9 (a) supports the principle of redevelopment on brownfield sites and the application site is brownfield in nature. Part (c) relating to contaminated land is examined below and the proposal is considered to meet this policy subject to a suitably worded condition. 1.4. NPF4 Policy 28 and LDP2 Policy 45 support retail in line with the ‘town centre first’ principle. In this instance, the proposed café is not located within the local centre but is at the edge of the village centre and previously had an established use as a Class 3 facility (Susy’s Tearoom). There are no issues with providing a replacement café/restaurant at this location of a very similar scale and size as the previous one. 1.5. LDP2 Policy 23 relates to tourist facilities and accommodation and NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to support tourism development on suitable sites and both are relevant in relation to the proposal for 4 self-catering units (which were not part of the previous facility). 1.6. Policy 23 ‘Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities’ supports tourist accommodation where: • the development is in a form, scale and location which is consistent with its surroundings – as explained above, there is support in principle for this scale of development within a settlement location • The proposals respect and integrate well with the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area – this is considered in more detail in Section 2 below • There is reasonably accessible public transport – the issues in relation to parking are considered in Section 8 below. In terms of sustainable travel, there are buses to and from Tighnabruaich and also visitors to this facility may arrive by the Waverly or as part of coach tours, which are considered more sustainable than the private car. Visitors may also travel by bike but the proposal does not include any specific details for the provision of bike parking or e-car charging. This, however, can be the subject of a condition.
Page 28
• It is well related to the existing built form of settlements – this is assessed in more detail in Section 2 below 1.7. NPF4 Policy 30 (b) contains similar criteria to Policy 23 and requires that the proposal should meet the following: ▪ Contribution to the local economy – it is considered that this proposal would make a significant contribution to the local economy. It is a prime development site and previously had a tearoom, which offered employment opportunities ▪ Compatibility with surrounding area in terms of nature/scale of activity and impacts of increased visitors – the proposed restaurant would replace the tearoom that previously existed on the site. This is considered to be a ‘like-for-like’ replacement that would not result in a rise in visitors. The introduction of four self-catering flats would increase the number of people but the nature and scale of this activity would be compatible with an existing village setting and is not considered to be significant ▪ Impact on communities, for example, hinder the provision of homes and services for local people – the development of this site for economic use, which continues the existing established use, does not affect the provision of homes or services for local people. Indeed, the opening of the restaurant would benefit the community by adding a new service/meeting place to the area and providing jobs ▪ Opportunities for sustainable travel and appropriate management of parking and traffic generation and scope for sustaining public transport services particularly in rural areas – this is assessed above under LDP2 Policy 23 ▪ Accessibility for disabled people – this issue will be addressed in detail at the Building Warrant stage although there are no concerns based on the plans currently under consideration ▪ Measures taken to minimise carbon emissions – the Sustainable Buildings Checklist submitted by the agent advises that, at this stage in the design process, the energy requirements for the building have not yet been calculated. However, it is “anticipated that renewables such as PV / solar / heat pump and zero carbon technologies will be utilise to optimise reliance on renewables and minimise the use of fossil fuels” ▪ Opportunities to provide access to the natural environment – The site has extensive views across the water and there is access to the shore across the main road 1.8. Overall, the proposal meets the criteria in LDP Policies 01 and 23 and NPF4 Policies 9 and 30 and is acceptable in principle. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. NPF4 Policy 14, LDP 9 and LDP Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 serve to ensure that new development, by reason of density and layout, effectively integrates with the urban setting and they resist developments with poor quality or inappropriate layouts or densities, including overdevelopment. 2.2. NPF4 Policy 14 requires proposals to be underpinned by the six qualities of successful places – healthy, pleasant, connected, distinctive, sustainable and adaptable. It also
Page 29
states that proposals that are detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding areas will not be supported. 2.3. The LDP2 design policies establish general principles for new development including that: • New development must reflect or recreate the traditional building pattern or built form • The scale, shape and proportion of development should respect or complement existing buildings and the plot density and size. Colour, materials and detailing are crucial to integrate the development within its context 2.4. This is a well-positioned site that has the benefit of the adjoining car park and the residential properties in this part of Tighnabruaich have limited architectural merit. As such, it is recognised that the plot has the potential to accommodate a building that wishes to make a statement arrived at through an innovative contemporary design approach and which would be used by members of the public. Indeed, there are other buildings in the village which are different from those in their surroundings and which stand out for this reason. 2.5. Whilst the Planning Authority does not wish to stifle distinctive development, it was considered that the previous proposal would have had an adverse visual impact on the immediate and wider surroundings by virtue of its excessive scale and massing and the inappropriate design detailing. Additionally, it would have represented an overdevelopment of the site on the basis that the separate restaurant/self-catering flats and staff accommodation buildings would have taken up the maximum available space (64% larger than the previous Susy’s Tearoom, caravan and metal shed) and would have resulted in an intensification in the previous use (a tearoom and static caravan for staff) through the presence of the restaurant, four holiday letting units and three staff studios. 2.6. The footprint of the currently proposed restaurant building is virtually the same as that taken up by the previous café, caravan and metal shed whilst the 3 staff units that were initially proposed have now been removed to allow space for on-site car parking to the rear, improving the parking on the site to what it was historically. 2.7. In acknowledging that the current proposal would still constitute an intensification in comparison with the long-standing previous use of the site, the removal of the staff accommodation is considered to result in a development with an appropriate scale of use. 2.8. In addition to the considerable reduction in the mass and footprint of buildings on the site, there have been a number of significant design improvements, including: • The relocation of the stainless-steel flue from the west-facing side elevation to the north-facing rear elevation and a reduction in its diameter • The avoidance of the Art Deco style • The simplification and slight enlargement in the areas of glazing on the front elevation of ground floor • The introduction of glazed balustrading on the first floor and on the open side on the east-facing side elevation
Page 30
• An increased verticality in the appearance of the top floor (although the overall height of the building is not material to the overall scale) • The introduction of a recessive grey cladding external finish, which satisfactorily mitigates the increase in volume and massing through the provision of an appropriate contrast to the remainder of the building thereby breaking up the massing • The omission of the porthole windows on the east-facing elevation Although the ridge of the revised building is 0.6 metres higher than the original scheme (and, therefore, 1.4 metres higher than the top of the adjoining dwellinghouse, Roseville), it is not considered that this increased differential would result in the residential property becoming dominated to a significantly adverse degree in terms of scale. 2.9 For all of the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal is now consistent with Policy 14 of NPF4 and Policies 05, 08, 09 and 10 of LDP2. 3. Landscape 3.1. LDP2 Policy 71 relates to Local Landscape Areas (LLAs) and this part of Tighnabruaich sits within such a designation. The policy seeks to resist development in or affecting LLAs where its scale, location or design would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. In all cases, the highest standards of location, siting, design, landscaping, boundary treatment and materials and detailing will be required. 3.2. As set out in Section 2 above, the proposed development is considered to be of an appropriate scale, massing, layout and design and, on this basis, it would have a ‘neutral’ effect thereby preserving the character and appearance of this part of the LLA in accordance with LDP2 Policy 71 and NPF4 Policy 4. 4. Flood and Water Management 4.1. NPF4 Policy 22(c) supports proposed developments that would not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; that would manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems: and that seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. The above NPF4 Policy is underpinned in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 by Policy 55 ‘Flooding’ and Policy 61 ‘Sustainable Drainage Systems’. 4.2. In relation to potential flood risk, the responses from SEPA and the Council’s own advisor identify that the site lies outwith the indicative limits of fluvial and surface water flooding, as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The coastal flood extent overlaps marginally with the southern region of the site. With reference to the Coastal Flood Boundary dataset, the 200 year still water level is 3.97 metres Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD). Including an additional 0.86m allowance for climate change and a further 0.6m freeboard, Finished Floor Levels for the building should be set to a minimum of 5.43 mAOD. With reference to the site plan, it is evident that the proposed site sits at an elevation above 6.5 mAOD; hence, this is acceptable. 4.3. The applicant does not include any details of the surface water drainage and there is concern that, given the size of the site, it may be difficult to secure a sustainable urban drainage system in accordance with the policy within the bounds of the site. However, it is on a coastal area where surface water can be discharged into the coastal waters without
Page 31
causing any issues of localised flooding. A condition is recommended to secure an on- site SUDS scheme to deal with the surface water. 4.4. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to a suitably worded condition, the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Policies. 5. Biodiversity 5.1. NPF4 Policy 3 states that proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity including restoring degraded habitats and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Local developments (such as the preset proposal) must include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity and these should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the development. LDP2 Policy 73 ‘Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity’ underpins this policy. 5.2. There are no protected site or species on the application site and it is brownfield land with no trees and some limited scrub vegetation. Some objectors have commented on the absence of a biodiversity/species assessment; however, this is not considered necessary in this case given the state of the site. There is, however, a requirement under NPF4 Policy 3 to enhance the biodiversity on the site. It is recognised that there is limited space for landscaping but other biodiversity enhancement measures could be included such as bat/bird boxes on the building itself and climbing plants could be used up the side of the building. A condition is recommended to ensure biodiversity enhancement measures are included. 5.3. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to a suitably worded condition, the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Policies. 6. Contaminated Land 6.1. NPF4 Policy 9 requires consideration of contamination on brownfield sites and Policy 82 ‘Contaminated Land’ covers the same topic. 6.2. During the consideration of the previous application, it had been thought that the applicant had disposed of asbestos appropriately although it has since transpired that this was not necessarily the case and an investigation has been undertaken by the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer, who has been consulted on the current proposal. 6.3. It is recommended that a condition can satisfy any concerns in relation to contaminants potentially remaining from the asbestos thereby ensuring that there is no harm to human health. It is a strict pre-start condition and it would ensure the proposal is compliant with the relevant policies. 7. Residential Amenity 7.1. There is concern from some of the contributors regarding the impact of the scale of this development in terms of noise, overlooking, loss of privacy and daylighting. In terms of the first issue, LDP2 Policy 14 ‘Bad Neighbour’ states that bad neighbour development includes any form of use involving a high turnover of customers at unsociable hours or that could result in unpleasant odours. 7.2. This criterion applies to the proposed café/restaurant but it should be noted that the use of the site for the consumption of food and drink on the premises had previously been established so this part of the proposal is accepted in principle. However, given the length of time that the previous tearoom had been operated, it is highly unlikely that there
Page 32
were any conditions on a Planning Permission that controlled matters such as noise, odour, etc. The Environmental Health Officer has recommended that conditions should be attached to a new permission in relation to controlling construction and operational noise and addressing any potential cooking odours. It is considered reasonable to attach these types of condition as this would result in assessments being carried out in the context of the most up-to-date legislation and guidance and would allow appropriate safeguarding measures to be introduced, such as opening hours, delivery/collection times, etc. 7.3. The owners of Roseville directly on the boundary are concerned about overlooking/loss of privacy as a result of the presence of balconies associated with the upper floor apartments. It is considered that the applicant has addressed this matter with the westernmost front balcony having a solid wall on the elevation facing towards the mutual boundary. 7.4. The grounds of the dwellinghouses to the northeast and east (The Firs and Lochee House) are distances of 25 metres and 39 metres respectively from the closest part of the proposed building and these properties are considered to be of a sufficient distance away that their privacy and amenity would not be affected to a significantly adverse degree as a result of overlooking. 7.5. There has been no daylight and sunlight analysis submitted with the application. However, in looking at the direction of the sun and the possible shadow that would be cast from the proposed building, it is likely to overshadow the neighbouring car park and it is not considered that the shadow would cast as far as the property known as The Firs apart from possibly in late evening when the setting sun is low in the sky. It is not considered there would be any loss of daylight to the property to the south of the proposed development given the path of the sun. 7.6. The ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ document published by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) advises that the loss of light to windows in existing buildings need not be analysed if the distance of each part of the new development from the existing window is three or more times its height above the centre of the existing window. In this case, the height of the new building is 8 metres and it would be located some 29 metres and at an angle from the west-facing elevation of the dwellinghouse known as The Firs, which contains a single small window. The distance between the two buildings is more than three times than the height differential referred to in the BRE guidance and, therefore, no analysis is needed. This is the same conclusion for the west- facing windows on the dwellinghouse that is further from the site (Lochee House) whilst the immediately adjacent Roseville does not have a window on its east-facing elevation. 7.7. There is concern over noise/disturbance from the scale of activity that this development would create. As mentioned above, there is already an established use as a café on this site so a degree of noise/disturbance has previously been accepted in this area. It is not considered that the introduction of an additional 4 self-catering letting units would result in the creation of noise and disturbance that would diminish the existing levels of residential amenity to a significantly adverse degree. Noise arising from the construction and operation of the development (including opening hours) can be controlled via conditions. 7.8. The proposal may result in odours from the extraction system. The flue is located on the rear elevation of the building that would face towards car parking spaces and the area containing recycling bins. The Environmental Health Service has recommended the attaching of a condition that requires the submission and approval of a detailed
Page 33
specification regarding the collection, treatment and disposal of cooking odours and the implementation of the system prior to the operation of the café/restaurant. 7.9. Overall, and subject to suitably worded conditions, it is considered that the proposal would not affect the residential amenity of the area to a significantly adverse degree and, as such. it meets the requirements of Policy 14. 8. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters 8.1. NPF4 Policy 13 supports development that provide easy access by sustainable transport modes and also provide charging points for vehicles and cycles and safe, secure cycle parking. The relevant Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 policies are Policy 35 ‘Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes’ and Policy 40 ‘Vehicle Parking Provision’. 8.2. As explained above, the site is directly adjacent to a public car park and there is suitable access and egress (with the appropriate visibility) into this car park. There are no concerns with regard to access to the site and turning areas within the public car park off the public road. 8.3. The previous application did not include any on-site parking and this contributed to one of the reasons for refusal. It previously was considered that the introduction of the four self-catering apartments and the three staff accommodation units would represent an increase in the demand for parking that would not be met by the proposed development. 8.4. As a result of the omission of the staff accommodation units, the current proposal incorporates five dedicated car parking spaces within the red line application site. The Roads Department considers that the provision of five on-site spaces is insufficient to cater for the four self-catering apartments, the patrons of the café/restaurant, disabled persons and members of staff. A number of objections have also been received relating to the matter of parking (see Section F above) and concern has been expressed that the car park does not have the capacity to support the additional parking demand. There are reservations that, if the overnight parking restriction was to be lifted to accommodate overnight parking for the self-catering units and members of staff then this would also encourage motorhome parking. There is concern that the spaces required would take up a significant proportion of the car park. 8.5. In determining the extent of the shortfall in parking spaces associated with the current proposal, it is considered reasonable to accept the use of the public car park by patrons and members of staff of the proposed café/restaurant as this was the situation that existed for decades in association with the previous Susy’s Tearoom. Having regard to the parking standards in LDP2 Policy 40, the number of spaces to be provided in relation to the four two-bedroomed units would be eight spaces. As five on-site spaces are proposed, this represents a shortfall of three spaces. 8.6. In the particular circumstance of this case, it is considered that this shortfall can be accepted as a minor departure to policy given the following wider considerations: • The presence of a large public car park immediately adjacent to the site and there is no evidence to suggest that there is insufficient capacity when the previous tearoom operated • The café/restaurant previously had no parking spaces on the site and the public car park was used by patrons and staff. There is no change in the floorspace of the café/restaurant so no change in trip profile and the use is lawful and established
Page 34
• Whilst acknowledging that the introduction of the 4 new self-catering apartments would intensify the overall site usage, the shortfall of three on-site parking spaces is considered to be relatively small and, given the active and sustainable travel options set out below, it is not considered that this level of shortfall would result in such clear and demonstrable harm as to warrant a refusal of the application • The aspirations that are inherent in NPF4 Policy 13 and Policy 33 of LDP2 highlight the importance of walking, cycling and proximity to public transport links. Public transport links including bus stops and the local pier (where passengers embark and disembark the PS Waverley) are within walking distance of the site and the agent has confirmed that a secure bike rack will be provided for customers and staff • The site previously was a café so it is brownfield land being brought back into use. The facilities on offer need to be expanded as the café/restaurant would not be commercially viable on its own so it is considered that the scheme as currently presented would bring economic benefit to the area (as opposed to a housing development, for instance) and would remove the blight of this brownfield site 8.7. Whilst it is recognised that the proposal does not fully meet the provisions of Policy 40 of LDP2 in terms of off-street parking, the mitigating factors detailed above are of sufficient materiality for the application to be approved as a minor departure to the Development Plan. 9. Infrastructure 9.1. NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. NPF4 Policy 22(c) supports proposed developments if they can be connected to the public water mains. The above NPF4 Policies are underpinned in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 by Policy 60 ‘Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems’. 9.2. In addition, NPF4 Policy 12(c) expects that developments, including residential and commercial, should incorporate measures that allow the appropriate segregation and storage of waste together with convenient access for the collection of waste. This NPF4 Policy is underpinned in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 by Policy 63 ‘Waste Related Development and Waste Management’. 9.3. It is proposed to connect the development into the public water main but there is no public sewerage system at this location. Scottish Water has confirmed that there is currently sufficient capacity in the public water supply. 9.4. The application includes provision of a bio disc foul drainage treatment plant. There are some questions over the detail of this from objectors; however, such matters would be controlled via a separate licence from SEPA. The main factor to consider in relation to planning is whether it can be accommodated on site and this has been satisfactorily demonstrated. 9.5. The site plan identifies the provision of a bin store and this is something that can be conditioned to ensure final details are submitted for approval and that the arrangements are constructed prior to the premises coming into use.
Page 35
9.6. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to suitably worded conditions, the proposed development is considered to accord with the relevant Policies.