00576_RoH EJ_ final amended 11.11
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 November 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 18 November 2025 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: 25/00576/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Kyle Kennedy Proposal: Erection of dwellinghouse, formation of vehicular access and associated works Site Address: Land Between Lagarie Lodge And Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute DECISION ROUTE Committee Decision under Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of dwellinghouse • Formation of vehicular access and associated works • Tree removal (ii) Other specified operations • N/A (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Core Paths – No response, therefore, assumed no objection. Scottish Rights Of Way And Access Society - No response, therefore, assumed no objection. Scottish Water - 24.04.2025 – No objection however Scottish Water have noted; There is currently sufficient capacity in the Blairlinnans Water Treatment Works to service your development. However, please note that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to us. This proposed development is within
Page 2
the Rhu Sep Waste Water Treatment Works catchment. Single house developments; unless utilising private drainage methods, are required to submit a Waste Water Application via our Customer Portal to allow us to fully appraise the proposals. We recommend that this is done at the earliest opportunity to allow for network appraisal to be carried out ahead of development proceeding. The applicant should be aware that we are unable to reserve capacity at our water and/or waste water treatment works. When planning permission has been granted and a formal connection application has been submitted, we will review the availability of capacity at that time and advise the applicant accordingly. For reasons of sustainability and to protect our customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water will not accept any surface water connections into our combined sewer system. There may be limited exceptional circumstances where we would allow such a connection for brownfield sites only, however this will require significant justification from the customer taking account of various factors including legal, physical, and technical challenges. Roads Helensburgh And Lomond - 08.05.2025 – No objection subject to conditions relating to; detailing of the vehicular access, gradients, surfacing materials, visibility splays, parking provision, turning, drainage and gates. Roads Helensburgh And Lomond – 05.11.25 - No objection subject to conditions. Roads have updated their initial consultation response to ensure consistency with previous recommendations for the site. The recommended conditions relation to the vehicular visibility splay has been updated as well as the condition relating to the access detailing. Built Heritage Conservation Officer - 06.06.2025 – Notes that the principle of development on the site has been accepted through the approval of 23/01502/PP, which remains extant. However, the built heritage conservation officer also notes potential issues with the proposed design and suggests some possible amendments (see detailed comments with assessment below). Built Heritage Conservation Officer - 14.10.2025 – The built heritage conservation officer was re-consulted on design amendments and relays concern in regards to the accuracy of the submitted drawings, the proposed materials and also the apparent lack of a further assessment as per NPF4 Policy 7 (see detailed comments with assessment below). Local Biodiversity Officer - 08.05.2025 – No objections, however, additional information has been requested by way of the following: European protected species surveys for bats and otter prior to determination, further protected species surveys prior to works starting on site, Tree survey prior to determination and details of proposed bio-diversity enhancement measures (see detailed comments with assessment below). Local Biodiversity Officer - 24.09.2025 – The Local Biodiversity Officer was re-consulted on the submitted tree survey and bat scoping survey report in light of their initial consultation response. The Local Biodiversity Officer confirms that the submitted bat scoping survey report has been undertaken by an appropriately qualified person and that a desk-study search shows there are no otters within 5km of the site and no waterways are present on the site. As a precautionary approach, and due to the transient nature of wildlife, they ask that a pre-works survey is carried out for Protected Species. (D) HISTORY: C6986 Conversion of Lagarie house from children’s home to from 4 flats, including the erection of 4 detached dwellinghouses to the West of the Lagarie house. Note: During determination the proposal for 4 dwellinghouses was reduced to 3 dwellinghouses. 24.05.1983 (application approved) C6986
Page 3
Erection of 3 dwellings houses 07.07.1983 (application approved) C6994 Erection of 2 detached dwellinghouses North-West of Lagarie house. 28.06.1983 (outline) (application approved) C8400 Erection of a 2 storey detached dwellinghouse with double integral garage to the East of Lagarie House. 07.04.1989 (outline) (application refused / appeal dismissed) P/PPA/SH/137 Appeal of planning refusal reference C8400. 05.02.1990 (appeal dismissed) 11/00528/PP Erection of 5 flats and car ports 07.11.2011 (application withdrawn) 19/02162/PP Erection of 2 dwellinghouses and garages 14.02.2020 (application withdrawn) 20/01382/PP Erection of dwellinghouse with integral garage and formation of new vehicular access 16.08.2023 (application withdrawn) 20/01383/LIB Formation of new vehicular access through the existing stone wall 16.08.2023 (application withdrawn) 23/01502/PP Erection of dwellinghouse and formation of new vehicular access 23.05.2024 (application approved) 23/01503/LIB Formation of new vehicular access through the existing stone wall 23.05.2024 (application approved) (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Listed Building/Conservation Advert Expiry Date: 15.05.2025 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Objection M Edwards Lagarie Cottage Mor Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 14.10.25 Irene Edwards Lagarie Cottage Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 14.10.25 P Cassidy Auchenlea Lodge Torwoodhill Road Rhu G84 8LF 14.10.2025 G Grant Auchenlea Lodge Torwoodhill Road Rhu G84 8LF 14.10.2025
Page 4
Jim Crawford Garden Cottage Lagarie Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 09.05.2025, 12.05.25, 21.07.25, 04.08.25, 06.10.25, 07.10.25, 24.10.25, 07.11.25, 10.11.25 Irene Crawford Garden Cottage Lagarie Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 09.05.2025, 24.10.25 Dr Krystina Crawford 736 Crow Road, Anniesland, Glasgow, G13 1NF 13.05.2025 Annamarie Kelly 3 Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 03.10.2025, 24.10.25 Sloan Kelly Flat 3 Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Mr Doolen Doonpark Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 09.10.2025 V Doolen Doonpark Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 09.10.2025 Moira Burke Lagarie Lodge Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Russell Burke Lagarie Lodge Torwoodhill Road Rhu Argyll And Bute 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Kate Austin Flat 2 Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Ron McKechnie Flat 1 Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Anne McKechnie Flat 1 Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Duncan McGuire Flat 4 Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Sandra McGuire Flat 4 Lagarie House Torwoodhill Road Rhu 09.10.2025, 24.10.25 Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: • Note that no public notice has been erected at the application site. Comment; Officers can confirm that the required notice was erected on the 22.05.2025. • Note that a Listed Building Consent application is also required. Comment; Officers confirm that a Listed Building Consent application is not required in this instance as the only development requiring Listed Building Consent is the alterations to the boundary wall to form the new vehicular access, however, these works currently benefit from Listed Building Consent approval under approval reference; 23/01503/LIB. No changes are proposed under this application that deviate from this approval therefore a separate listed building consent application is not required at this time. • Concern that the Design and Conservation Officer has not been consulted on the application. Comment; Officers confirm that the Design and Conservation Officer has been consulted on this application. • Concern that no tree survey has been submitted. Comment; officers can confirm that a tree survey has been submitted. • Note that no consultation has been requested from the community council. Comment; The authority is only required to consult with the community council on applications where the proposed development is likely to affect the amenity of the area. In this instance officers do not consider that the proposed development affects the amenity of the area (see assessment below).
Page 5
Furthermore, the community council can choose to submit a consultee response, however, they have not in this instance. • Note that the application site is the front garden of the neighbouring listed property. Comment; the application site no longer forms part of the neighbouring listed properties curtilage due to the passage of time the lawn area has been separated by vegetation and is not used in association with the main house. • Concern in terms of existing drainage pipes (foul & surface water) running through the site. Comment; This is noted, however, this is a private civil matter. It is also confirmed that a standards SUDS condition will be added to this application with regards to surface water on the application site. • Concern in regard to the proposed parking positioning in terms of the potential negative effects on the access to the neighbouring listed property. Comment; this is noted and it is considered that with the appropriate screening (as included by condition) this is acceptable. It is further noted that the neighbouring property Lagarie Lodge has an access onto the shared access to the neighbouring listed property and currently has a parking area to the rear. • Concern in regard to proposed tree removal as the site forms part of a TPO area. Comment; please see assessment below. • Concern that the proposals do not take into account SUDS. Comment: A detailed SUDS scheme will be conditioned. • Note that a transport assessment / noise assessment should be provided in regard to the new vehicular access. Comment; the area roads manager has been consulted on the proposals and has confirmed that they have no objections subject to conditions. There is no requirement for a transport/noise assessment in this instance given the small scale nature of the proposals. • Note that daylight / sunlight calculations should be provided. Comment; this is noted, however, the above calculations are not a requirement and in this instance officers consider that there are no negative effects on the daylight / sunlight to neighbouring properties arising from the proposed development. • Note that an ecology / habitat survey should be provided. Comment; it is confirmed that a preliminary ecological assessment has been submitted with regards to the application site. • Note that the bat scoping survey has not been completed by a qualified ecologist in line with the bio-diversity officer’s consultation response.
Page 6
Comment; The Local Biodiversity Officer has confirmed that the submitted bat scoping survey report has been undertaken by an appropriately qualified person. • Note that no details of the proposed bio-diversity enhancement measures as requested by the bio-diversity officer have been submitted. Comment; It is confirmed that the proposed bio-diversity enhancement measures have been included within the submitted preliminary ecological assessment. • Note that no details on the bio-diversity value of the trees on site have been submitted as per the request of the bio-diversity officer. Comment; this is noted, however, it is confirmed that the council’s biodiversity officer has provided an updated response which is detailed in assessment below. • Note that no detail drawings have been submitted in regards to the proposed access alterations. Comment; the access alterations are shown on the proposed site plan, which notes ‘New access, visibility splays and wall to be as per previous approval ref: 23/01502/PP….’ • Concern with regards to the suitability of the landscaping proposals. Comment; it is recommended that a planning condition is added to any approval requiring the submission and approval of a detailed landscaping scheme. • Note that the revised design submitted should have required a fresh planning application as the changes are significant given the increase in size and height. It was previously a two low level pitched roofs at the same pitch angle and now it is a single roof spanning the full width of the proposed house with significant increase in roof height. The new house type in plan, section, elevations and location on site bearing no resemblance to the initial building proposal. Comment; it is confirmed that it is the view of officers that the design amendments are considered to be non-material and therefore a fresh planning application is not required in this instance. The amendments are not significant as the footprint has only increased by 25sqm, the positioning is slightly closer to the main house but not by much and the ridge has increased but it is marginal and the house remains single storey. • Note that the public should be notified of the revised design proposals. Comment; it is confirmed that there is no requirement to re-notify interested parties as the design amendments are considered to be non-material, however, officers have exercised discretion in this instance and have re- notified all interested parties. • Note that the scale of the proposed house is inappropriate in the context. Comment; please see assessment below.
Page 7
• Comment that the historical approvals; C6986 for the conversion of Lagarie House from children's home to from 4 flats, including the erection of 4 detached dwellinghouses to the West of Lagarie House (during the determination process this was reduced to the erection of 3 dwellinghouses to the West in lieu of the initial 4 applied for) and C6994 for the erection of 2 detached dwellinghouses to the North-West of Lagarie House, there was a planning condition on these approvals that stated ‘there shall be no direct access, vehicular or pedestrian on to the A814. Therefore, the proposed access under this application should not be allowed as the previous condition is legally binding and the subsequently the recent approval on the site has no legal means of access and is thus invalid. Comment; This condition was in relation to previous planning approvals (references; C6986 & C6994) and was complied with. It is not a condition binding on all future developments for the overall site. The 5 detached dwellinghouses approved under the aforementioned applications are located to the West and North-West of Lagarie House, this application site is located to the East of Lagarie House. This application is in relation to a different development; therefore, officers will access the suitability of the proposed access onto the A814 under the current development plan and all material planning considerations. It is further noted the area roads manager was consulted on the current application and the proposed vehicular access on to the A814 and has noted that they have no objections to this subject to recommended planning conditions. • Concern about potential impacts on wildlife. Comment: please see assessment below. • Concern about forming a new access through a listed wall. Comment; please see assessment below. • Concern that the removal of trees or bushes would create greater traffic noise for neighbouring properties. Comment; this is noted however this is considered to be minimal. • Concern that the proposals could affect bats. Comment; the applicants have submitted a potential bat roost assessment. This assessment concludes ‘Having regard to the distribution of species, habitat, potential roost features, suitability and importance of any of these and signs of bat activity the risk of bat roosts or bats being disturbed is negligible or low and roosting can reasonably be ruled out’. Furthermore, the submitted preliminary ecological assessment also makes reference to bats and concludes ‘No further survey is required unless plans for tree felling are changed at which point a pre-felling check should be undertaken’. • Note that a previous application for a single dwelling on the proposal site was refused in 1989 and also refused at the subsequent appeal in 1990 and therefore this application should also be refused. Comment; this is noted however, it is confirmed that the previous decision simply confirms that the principle of development was determined to be
Page 8
unacceptable having regard to the detail of the proposal, development plan policy and circumstances at the point in time that the appeal decision was made. A substantial period of time has elapsed since the appeal decision and within this time the relevant development plan and other relevant policy considerations have been superseded by subsequent iterations of the Local Development Plan and National Policy and Guidance and accordingly it is necessary for any decision on the current application to be assessed against these revised provisions and in relation to the current circumstances of the site and its surrounds. It should also be noted that the most recent application for this site was approved in May 2024 for a single house (reference; 23/01502/PP). • Concern about the removal of the mature rhododendron hedge. Comment; rhododendron ponticum is an invasive species and the removal of this would benefit the biodiversity on the site. • Concern that SEPA / the flood risk advisors have not been consulted on the proposal with regards to potential flooding, surface water drainage and existing below ground drains. Comment; As the site is not within the indicative flood risk zone (coastal / surface / river) as per the SEPA maps, the trigger for consulting SEPA / the flood risk consultants as a statutory consultee has not been met, therefore, there is no need to consult as the development is not considered to be at risk of flooding. With regards to surface water drainage, this will be added as a planning condition and to confirm SEPA / the flood risk consultants do not require to be consulted with regard to surface water. Lastly the possible presence of existing below ground drains within the site are a private civil matter and not a matter for SEPA or the flood risk consultants, it is also noted that Scottish Water have noted no objections and have not flagged that they have any Scottish Water assets in proximately to the site within their consultation response. • Note that a flood risk assessment is required. Comment; There is no requirement for a flood risk assessment as the site is not considered to be at risk of flooding (see comment above). • Note that no site levels have been shown and there is a possibility that the finished floor levels could be lower than the SEPA required levels on other applications. Comment; The site is not considered to be at risk of flooding and therefore SEPA have not been consulted. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: No
Page 9
(ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: A planning supporting statement has been submitted which covers the following topics; • Site Context and Surroundings • Accessibility • Design • Policy overview The statement concludes the following: The development will improve on the sense of identity and character of the area of the village of Rhu. The potential redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is of a scale and nature that will positively compliment surrounding properties within Rhu. In conclusion, taking into consideration Argyle and Bute’s Local Development Plan it is our view that the proposed development is acceptable, and the proposed scale, design and massing of the residential development complies with policy criteria as set out in the LDP2 and NPF4. The above information provides sufficient evidence and justification to show a compliance to Policy related to proposals of this nature. Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist Yes Yes (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Planning Further Assessment (Allison Architecture, May 2025). This report provides an assessment demonstrating the acceptability of design in regards to the adjacent listed building as per the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 7. Preliminary Ecological Assessment (JDC Ecology Limited, July 2025) The assessment was undertaken on the 25th of June 2025. The assessment provides an overview of the area as regards the main habitat types and the presence or likely presence of protected or notable species and Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS). The assessment concludes that the land as surveyed would be regarded overall as of moderate biodiversity value, including both the woodland and grasslands. However, the woodland requires suitable management to resolve current issues, which includes an established cover of Rhododendron, and general lack of management to optimise woodland structure and diversity. Yes
Page 10
Tree Survey Report (Julian A Morris, June 2025) The survey was undertaken in May 2025. Each tree over 75mm diameter on site was recorded. Around 50 trees on and around the site were recorded, measured and categorised individually. The survey did not identify the presence of individual veteran or ancient trees on or around the site. Root protection areas were identified for all the trees. Bat Scoping Survey Report (Julian A Morris, June 2025) The nature of the survey was to undertake a preliminary character assessment to ascertain whether the site has potential to support roosting and/or foraging bats and identify the species of bat and any trees and their potential for roost feature and signs of bat use. The survey was carried out in May 2025. The stone wall was checked for cavities or unbound rubble interiors and no signs of this was found. All trees were checked for holes, cavities and hollows and no sign of potential roost features were identified on any of the trees. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: 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 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place
Page 11
NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – 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 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Connected Places 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 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Homes for People Policy 66 – New Residential Development on Non-Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (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 Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) • Historic Environment Scotland – HEPS • Historic Environment Scotland – Managing Change in The Historic Environment - various
Page 12
(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre- application consultation (PAC): No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: Please note that officers are not recommending a pre-determination hearing as it is considered that there would be no added value in this as all material planning considerations have been taken into account within this report including; consultee responses, third party representations and planning history etc. No (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Conservation Area Setting of Listed Buildings - Lagarie House (Category B) and Ardencaple Hotel (Category A) Tree Preservation Order - TPO 26 - Lagarie Children's Home, Rhu (confirmed 1984) (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? Yes Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? Yes (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy Settlement Area
Page 13
ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations: The proposed development relates to the erection of a 2 bed detached dwellinghouse and formation of new vehicular access. The site is located within the settlement area of Rhu as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) wherein Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) notes that development will normally be acceptable on a non-brownfield site where, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to the overall land supply, it is compatible with surrounding uses, it is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements. The proposal lies within the Rhu Conservation Area and the residential property adjacent to the West, “Lagarie House” which is a Category “B” listed building. Additionally, within the vicinity is the Category “A” listed “Ardencaple Hotel”. As such, the impact of the proposed development on the historic environment is a determining factor. In addition, the proposed development has been assessed more generally with regard to siting, scale, massing form, and detailed design in relation to the aim of respecting and reflecting the visual character of the existing built development pattern; and protecting local residential amenity. The site is covered by an area Tree Preservation Order (TPO), however, the site is not located within or in proximity to any nature conservation sites, nor does it lie within NatureScot Ancient Woodland Inventory. However, any impact upon the natural environment in relation to biodiversity and impact on trees/woodland requires to be assessed in connection with the proposal. The proposal has also been assessed with regard to the satisfactory provision of services infrastructure provision. A fully detailed assessment with reference to the above determining factors, and all other material considerations, including planning history and material planning issues raised by third party representations (not addressed above) are set out in the Appendix A to this report. Having regard to all material considerations it is considered that the proposal is acceptable. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act.
Page 14
(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Emma Jane Date: 05.11.2025 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 11.11.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 15
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00576/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 07.04.25; 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 Location Plan 1 of 13 A 9th April 2025 Site Plan as Existing 2 of 13 - 8th April 2025 Site Sections A-A + B-B as existing 3 of 13 A 5th September 2025 Site Sections C-C + D-D as existing 4 of 13 A 5th September 2025 Site Plan as proposed 5 of 13 A 5th September 2025 Site Sections A-A + B-B as proposed 6 of 13 A 5th September 2025 Site Sections C-C + D-D as proposed 7 of 13 A 5th September 2025 Ground Floor Plan as proposed 8 of 13 A 5th September 2025 South West Elevation 9 of 13 A 5th September 2025 North East Elevation as proposed 10 of 13 - 5th September 2025 South East Elevation as proposed 11 of 13 - 5th September 2025 North West Elevation as proposed 12 of 13 A 5th September 2025 Roof Plan as proposed 13 of 13 A 7th November 2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Scottish Water – Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit written evidence to the Planning Authority that an agreement with Scottish Water is in place for the connection of the proposed development to the public water supply and wastewater sewage network. Reason: In the interests of public health and to ensure the availability of an adequate water supply to serve the proposed development.
Page 16
3. Sustainable Urban Drainage – Notwithstanding Condition 1, details of a sustainable urban drainage system compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753 must be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to the commencement of development. The surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure adequate surface water drainage is implemented to prevent flooding elsewhere. 4. Landscape - Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, full details of both hard and soft landscape works to be carried out at the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in the form of a detailed landscaping plan. The approved hard landscaping works shall be carried out prior to first occupation of the development and the soft landscaping works / replacement tree planting within the first planting season following first occupation of the development. The details submitted shall include: - details of the proposed hard surfacing (including proposed materials); - details of proposed boundary treatments; - details of proposed soft landscaping; - details of the replacement tree planting (location, size and species); - programme for completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and the natural environment. 5. Biodiversity Enhancement - Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, a revised biodiversity statement based on the Preliminary Ecological Assessment table 6 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 (bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc) as set out in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment table 6 and also include the retention of any felled native species as deadwood 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. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3 and the recommendations of the council biodiversity officer. 6. Trees – Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, a tree protection plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the authority. Thereafter, all retained trees on site shall be protected at all times during construction in accordance with the British Standard; BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations). Reason: The landscape features to be protected are important to the appearance and character of the site and the surrounding area and are required to successfully integrate the proposal with its surroundings. 7. Pre-works checks - Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, pre-works checks for the presence of bats, breeding birds, hibernating
Page 17
hedgehogs and amphibians on site; shall be carried out by an appropriately qualified person. In circumstances where species of interest are identified as being present, or at risk from construction works, a statement shall be submitted to and approved by the authority in writing to provide suggested avoidance and or mitigation measures, including timing constraints, to address such presence or risk. Reason: In order to establish that the circumstances of the site have not changed significantly between approval and implementation of the development for the purpose of protecting natural heritage assets in the interest of nature conservation. 8. Invasive Non-Native Species Eradication Plan - Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, a non-native species eradication plan (in accordance with the ‘Code of Practice with regard to non-native species; http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/08/7367/0’) for the non-native species present on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the authority. Reason: In the interest of nature conservation. 9. External Materials - Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, samples of the proposed materials to be used for the external finishes of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposal with its surroundings. 10. Sustainable Design – Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, details of the on-site micro renewable energy to provide heat or electricity to the property and details of the use of the final materials – including details of any re-cycled materials or local sourced materials and their embodied energy for each materials, shall first be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved micro renewables and materials must be used in the development hereby approved. Reason: In order to ensure compliance with LDP2 Policy 09 and to ensure the building is being as energy efficient as possible in order to respond to climate change. 11. Quality homes – Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved timescale for completion unless an alternative timescale for completion is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 12. Potential sources of nuisance – Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, identification and assessment of all potential sources of nuisance, including noise/ vibration, dust, and any temporary lighting provided, which may cause disturbance to nearby residents during the demolition / construction process shall be undertaken by the applicant. This should include consideration of intended hours of operation, movement of vehicles, use of plant and storage of equipment and materials on site. For all potential sources of nuisance, the applicant will be required to provide a management plan with details of suitable control measures to be put in place so as to ensure that construction does not cause loss of amenity to local residents and/or statutory nuisance. The management plan must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority and thereafter complied with.
Page 18
Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 13. Parking and Turning – Notwithstanding Condition 1, The parking and turning area shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing reference; 00- 003 REV. A prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 14. Junction with public road - Notwithstanding Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/005 Rev. B (as laid out on approved drawing reference; 00-003 REV. A) incorporating vehicular visibility splays of 75 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres measured from the edge of the carriageway and pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4 m x 2.4 x 0.9 metres measured from the rear of the footway. Thereafter the driveway shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/002 Rev. B, providing a minimum driveway access width of 5.5m for the first 10m, reducing to no less than 3.7m thereafter (3.5m where not bound by walls). The access shall be surfaced with a bound material for the first 5m. Gradients of the access drive must be no greater than 5% over the first 5.0m and thereafter must not exceed 12.5%. Drainage shall be achieved within the boundary such that no water shall discharge onto the public carriageway. Prior to the commencement of development the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt the required visibility spays. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being occupied and the visibility splays shall thereafter be maintained clear of all obstructions in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Page 19
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • LDP2 Policy 34 - Electric Vehicle Charging states that for all new build houses with private off street parking dedicated cable ducting connecting each private residential parking space to the nearest electricity supply connection point capable of supporting the installation of a 7-kilowatt EV charging point shall be installed. This has since been superseded by a new Building Regulations standard (ref 7.2 of Technical Handbook Jan 2025 edition) which requires a minimum of one electric vehicle charge point socket with an output rating of not less than 7 kW to be provided adjacent to the parking space. As it is controlled via Building Standard then this has not been subject to a condition. • A roads opening permit (Section 56) must be obtained prior to any works on, or alongside the existing adopted carriageway. • It is noted that no gates have been included within the application, if new access gates are proposed these will likely require a further planning application. Furthermore, any access gates would need to be sited at least 6 metres from the edge of the carriageway to allow an entering vehicle to stop clear of the carriageway when the gates are closed. Any access gates must be hung so that they do not open towards the carriageway.
Page 20
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00576/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. The site is located within the settlement area of Rhu as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) wherein Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) notes that development will normally be acceptable on a non-brownfield site where the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to the overall land supply for the proposed use, and it is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively; providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development, and it is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and lastly that it complies with all relevant LDP2 policies. 1.2. LDP2 Policy 66 (New Residential development on non–allocated housing sites within Settlement Areas) requires that new buildings will only be permitted where: a) the layout, density, plot ratio, scale, form and materials of any proposed development do not detract from the character of the surrounding buildings and the local area; b) it does not affect the privacy and amenity of existing and proposed properties; c) the site provides a suitable residential environment; d) it provides appropriate private and public open space and; e) an appropriate standard of access to and parking for vehicles associated with the development is provided, it does not result in the loss of any existing parking spaces, and that traffic generated as a result of the development is capable of being accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network surrounding the development; f) it is not detrimental to the overall housing land supply of the LDP2. The proposals must also demonstrate that they meet the tests laid down in National Planning Framework 4 Policy 16 (Quality homes) criterion f). 1.3. NPF4 Policy 16 (f) supports new homes on land not allocated for housing where the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out, it is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies including local living and the proposal is for smaller scale opportunity within an existing settlement. 1.4. NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling the climate and nature crises) requires that significant weight be given the global climate and nature crises when considering new development. Policy 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to impacts on climate change. NPF 4 Policy 5 (Soils) aims to protect locally, regionally, national and internationally valued soils. 1.5. The development is considered small-scale as it for the erection of one dwelling. It is located within an identified settlement with access to community facilities and public transport networks, consistent with NPF 4 Policy 15 (Local Living and 20 minute Neighbourhoods), and is compatible with the provisions of NPF 4 Policy 1 in terms of addressing the Climate Crisis in principle. The site is located within an established residential area and will not impact upon soil that has material value. It is recommended that any planning permission will be subject to a model planning condition. 1.6. On the above basis, it is considered that there is a general presumption in favour of the principle of this proposed development in terms of its location, nature and scale when assessed against the policy provisions relating to the LDP2 and relevant NPF4 Policies.
Page 21
2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site measures approximately 3254sqm and is bounded to the North by the existing access to neighbouring Lagarie House, to the East by the boundary of Lagarie Lodge, to the West by the boundary of Lagarie House and to the South by an existing stone wall that separates the site from the A814. It is proposed to create the access to the site through this stone wall which is considered to be listed by way of curtilage listing relative to Lagarie House (category B listed), there is a extant listed building consent for the alterations to this wall (reference; 23/01503/LIB). There is an established belt of trees and large shrubs along the South, East and West site boundaries separating it from the grounds of Lagarie House and the A814. To the Southern boundary of the site and also extending up the Western boundary there is a large rhododendron hedge. The site slopes gently upwards from South to North. 2.2. The application site formerly formed part of Lagarie House’s curtilage and was part of the main House’s lawn. Lagarie House was however, subdivided into flats historically and its curtilage was divided into plots. 5no. Dwellinghouses have subsequently been built to the North-West and West of the Lagarie House as well as Lagarie Lodge which was built to the East. This plot is located in between Lagarie House, the original main house and Lagarie Lodge (an infill house built in the mid-1900’s) and has been separated visually from the main house by vegetation. It is therefore not considered that the site forms part of the curtilage of Lagarie House. 2.3. The proposed house is to be sited centrally within the plot from West to East and from South to North it is to be sited such that the front elevation is in line with the front elevation of both Lagarie House and Lagarie Lodge. The proposed access from the A814 will be formed through the existing stone wall on the Southern boundary and will be located centrally on this boundary, with driveway extending to the West of the of the proposed house and to the rear where a turning area and parking for 3no. vehicles is proposed. The proposed dwellinghouse will have 2 bedrooms with a footprint of approximately 160sqm, a maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and a maximum ridge height of approximately 5 metres. The proposed house is traditional in massing but utilises contemporary design materials and detailing which complements the architectural character of the surrounding area. The proposed house uses single storey massing which is in keeping with the adjacent Lagarie Lodge. The massing of the proposed house is made up of 2 intersecting gable forms with the projecting gable element to the principal ‘street facing’ elevation being mainly glazed to emphasis this principal elevation a central chimney is also proposed which will provide an attractive roofscape. A contemporary pallet of materials is proposed to respect and enhance the characteristics of the surrounding properties and wider conservation area. This will include; slate roof, dark grey polyester powder coated aluminium facias and rain water goods, off-white wet dash render, beige-grey polyester powder coated aluminium windows and doors and lastly a vertical western red cedar cladding to the inset porch. There would also be integrated photo voltaic panels installed to the south facing roof slopes. 2.4. It is noted that a revised house design was submitted during the determination process. Further details and reasoning behind this will be proved in section 4 below. 2.5. NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, quality and place) requires that development proposals be designed to improve the quality of an area; and, offers support to development that achieve the six qualities of Health; Pleasant; Connected; Distinctive; Sustainable; and, Adaptable. Development that is poorly designed, detrimental to the amenities of surrounding areas or inconsistent with the aforementioned six qualities will not be supported. 2.6. NPF4 Policy 14 is closely aligned with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 04 (Sustainable Development) which requires that developers to demonstrate certain sustainable development principles and also Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking) which requires developers to comply with certain placemaking criteria including; compatibility with surrounding land uses, make use of existing infrastructure, respect site topography, improve connectivity, incorporate green and blue infrastructure, adopting design that respects and complements its surroundings, siting and design should respond to the natural environment and the design should be sustainable in terms of materials and construction and should consider future adaptability, and climate change mitigation measures.
Page 22
2.7. LDP2 Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting) requires that development integrates into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment, and the siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density; development should be carefully sited to avoid overshadowing or overlooking of itself or other properties; development should be positioned within the landscape to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements;, development should be sited within easy access of existing infrastructure and services; and any ancillary development such as parking and turning areas, should be sensitively designed and sited. LDP2 Policy 09 (Sustainable Design) requires that development proposals demonstrate consideration of renewable energy and sustainable design & construction methods. LDP2 Policy 10 (Design: All Development) requires demonstration of an appropriate response to the development site and wider context, acknowledgement of the scale / massing of nearby buildings and use materials that are harmonious with the context. 2.8. Having regard to the built development pattern and densities of the local area, it is noted that there is a range of scale and design of houses, and whilst the overall pattern of built development is very spacious, there is a range of plot ratios. The ratio of built development to open curtilage in the case of this proposal is spacious in nature and reflects the plot ratio of the adjacent Lagarie Lodge. The scale of the house is comparably small, and it is considered that the siting, form, massing and material finishes will respect and reflect the existing character of the built environment and compliment the visual character of the area in accordance with the relevant provisions of NPF4 and LDP2. 2.9. The proposed house will be screened from Lagarie House and Lagarie Lodge by existing natural boundary features and the planting of additional trees to the North will screen the proposals including the rear car parking area from Lagarie cottage, in conjunction with the proposed orientation of windows and separation distances will mean that there will be no material loss of residential amenity to the occupiers of these properties by reason of overlooking. It is also considered that the proposed siting and scale of the proposals there will be no negative effects on the daylight / sunlight to neighbouring properties arising from the development. On this basis, Officers area satisfied that the proposed development will not have a material impact upon the residential amenities of nearby properties in accordance with the relevant provisions of NPF4 and LDP2. 2.10. In relation to sustainability, the application has included the submission of the Sustainability Checklist and the Sustainable Buildings Checklist in response to LDP2 Policy 09. The application responds to the sustainability criteria as follows: • The site is located in accordance with the LDP2 settlement and spatial strategy; • It is well connected in terms of active travel and public transport routes; • It avoids high quality agricultural land and does not raise issues of flood risk or land erosion; • It maintains the quality of the historic environment; • Proposed siting has minimised groundworks including excavation and fill; • The house is designed to be adaptable for future needs and is all on one level; • The house is designed to have integrated photo voltaic panels to the south facing roof slopes; • The house is designed internally to have main habitable rooms in the elevations which benefit from maximum daylighting and solar gain. 2.11. As such, with regard to sustainable principles, it is accepted that the application is sustainably located. Whilst some principles of sustainable design and construction methods are not clearly set out, it is considered that further information can be obtained via condition (in this instance) to demonstrate clearly how sustainable principles are being incorporated into the design. 3. Natural Environment 3.1. NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) generally seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and to deliver positive benefits from development that strengthens nature networks. Policy 3(c) requires that proposals for local development will include appropriate biodiversity measures
Page 23
proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposal. Policy 3(d) requires any potential adverse impacts on biodiversity/nature networks/natural environment to be minimised by planning and design. NPF 4 Policy 3 is generally aligned with LDP2 Policy 73 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity), although NPF4 Policy 3(c) goes beyond the LDP2 requirements in relation to current biodiversity interests of the site. 3.2. NPF4 Policy 4 (Natural places) generally confirms that development that will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Outside of European, national and local designations, development is expected to meet the relevant statutory tests in terms of protected species legislation; and potential impacts must be fully considered prior to determination of planning applications. NPF4 Policy 4 (insofar as it relates to the location, nature and scale of the current proposal) largely aligns with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 73. 3.3. LDP2 Policy 04 seeks to conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets. LDP2 Policy 73 ensures that other legislation relating to biodiversity habitats are fully considered in relation to development proposals; and generally, that development does not have an adverse impact on habitat or species, particularly in relation to habitat or species designated as being of European, national or local significance. 3.4. The site is not located within or in proximity to any nature conservation designation. 3.5. The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer has been consulted on the proposals and requested additional information (prior to determination) by way of; European protected species surveys for bats & otter and a tree survey (including the bio-diversity value of individual trees). The applicants have subsequently provided a Bat Scoping Survey Report, a full Tree Survey and a Preliminary Ecological Assessment. With regards to the potential presents of bats and otter, the submitted Bat Scoping Survey Report concludes that ‘having regard to the distribution of species, habitat, potential roost features, suitability and importance of any of these and signs of bat activity the risk of bat roosts or bats being disturbed is negligible or low and roosting can reasonably be ruled out.’ Furthermore, the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment also concludes with regards to bats ‘No further survey is required unless plans for tree felling are changed at which point a pre-felling check should be undertaken’ based on the forgoing with regards to bats it is recommended a pre-felling check for the presents of bats is undertaken prior to the felling of any trees. With regards to the potential presence of otter the council bio-diversity officers second consultation response notes that ‘A desk-study search shows there are no otters within 5km of the site and no waterways are present on the site’. Furthermore, the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment also concludes with regards to otter ‘No evidence of otters was recorded, the Site is not suitable for otters either lying up or moving through territory, and this species is not considered to be an issue.’ Based on the forgoing with regards to otter it is considered that no further surveys are required.. With regards to trees this will be accessed under section 5 below. 3.6. The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer also initially recommended that further protected species surveys and proposed bio-diversity enhancement measures are conditioned as part of any approval, however, they have updated their response in light of the submitted Preliminary Ecological Assessment and provided a third consultation response. Within this they have provided subsequent recommendations which are summarised as follows; that vegetation clearance and tree felling are to be undertaken outwith the breeding bird season, pre-works checks for bats, breeding birds (if it is not possible to clear outwith breeding bird season), hedgehogs and amphibians are carried out prior to vegetation clearance and tree felling, a programme for the eradication of INNS Rhododendron ponticum is submitted, that any felled native species trees should be retained as deadwood, that the biodiversity enhancement measures identified within the PEA report should be are followed and that a programme of tree planting should be submitted to include species which must be native and appropriate to the locality of the area including a schedule of monitoring and maintenance until such a time as the trees become established. It is therefore recommended that appropriate planning conditions be added to any approval covering the aforementioned.
Page 24
3.7. It is further recommended that any planning permission be subject to a condition requiring the submission of a detailed scheme of landscaping including; hard and soft landscaping as well as boundary treatments is submitted to and approved by the authority prior to works starting on site. 3.8. Based on the above and subject to appropriate planning conditions it is considered that the proposals will have no adverse effect on a European Protected Species and meets the requirements of LDP2 Policy 73. 4. Built / Historic Environment 4.1. The application site forms part of the original grounds of a Category B listed building, “Lagarie House.” Additionally, within the vicinity is Category A listed “Ardencaple Hotel” which is adjacent to Lagarie Lodge on the opposite side of Torwoodhill Road. 4.2. The site is located within the Rhu Conservation Area. 4.3. NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic assets and places) generally seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment, assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 7(a) requires that development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places be accompanied by an assessment based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the asset and/or place. Development will only be supported where the character and appearance of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced. It is noted that officers are satisfied that the proposals have met the policy requirements of NPF4 Policy 7(a) and have submitted a further assessment in May 2025 which provides an assessment demonstrating the acceptability of design as per the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 7. 4.5. NPF4 Policy 7(c) requires that development proposals affecting the setting of a listed building preserve its character, and its special architectural or historic interest. LDP2 Policy 16 (Listed Buildings) add to this that that development must be of the highest quality, and respect the original structure in terms of setting, scale, design, materials and proposed use. 4.6. NPF4 Policy 7(d) requires that development proposals in a conservation area will only be supported when the character or appearance of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced. Relevant considerations include the architectural and historic character of the area; existing density, built form and layout; context and siting, quality of design and suitable materials. LDP2 Policy 17 (Conservation Areas) broadly reflects this. 4.7. The Council’s Design and Conservation Officer was consulted on the initial proposals and summarised; ‘…the principle of development on the site has been accepted through the approval of 23/01502/PP, which remains extant. 25/00576/PP puts forward a revised design, being small scale and single storey. The front façade remains in line with those of Lagarie House and Lagarie Lodge. The elevations appear to be erroneously named as, from the plan, the elevation marked “south-east” would face the road (to the south, south-west). The design of this elevation with its square full height glazing, does not appear to fit particularly harmoniously with either Lagarie House or Lagarie Lodge. It would perhaps be more appropriate to rotate the design 90 degrees counter-clockwise to allow some of the more traditional elements of the design to face the road.’ Subsequently discussions were had with the applicants to address the concerns raised by the council Design and Conservation Officer and a revised house design was submitted. The design amendments, alter the massing and proportions of the proposed house to allow for a street facing elevation which appears to be more formal and gives the appearance of a principal elevation as opposed to the previous design, the from is still of two gable elements, however as opposed to have the two gable elements of differing ridge heights in parallel to each other, they are now proposed to bi-sect and the two ridge heights are equal which pulls up the ridge height to similar proportions as the neighbouring property Lagarie
Page 25
Lodge. The footprint has also increased slightly by 25sqm and has moved slightly closer to the West as to omit any possible privacy issues with Lagarie Lodge. The materials pallet has also been updated to take queues from the surrounding built environment. The councils Design and Conservation Officer has been re-consulted on the design amendments and has noted ‘The design currently being assessed under 25/00576/PP has been revised, with changes made to the scale, materials and design. The proposal now includes beige-grey windows (RAL 7006) as well as off-white wet dash render and red cedar cladding, introducing potentially too many confusing elements with insufficient cognisance of the architectural character of the immediate context. Additionally, the proposed roof design is unclear as, while the elevations show the whole roof to be one height, this is not what is shown on the roof plan – this shows the side roofs meeting the main roof at a point approx. 1/6 of the distance from ridge to eaves, which would alter the elevations…. A Planning Statement has been submitted however this does not include analysis of the site within the conservation area and setting of listed Lagarie House, and how the design has developed within this regard….’. with regards to the Design and Conservation Officer’s updated comments officers would note that the applicants have submitted an updated roof plan which ties in with the submitted elevations, with regards to the proposed materials; the off-white wet dash render is intended to match the existing style of surrounding properties, the slate roof will also match neighbouring properties, the dark grey rainwater goods and fascias are to tie in with the slate roof, the beige-grey windows and doors draw inspiration from neighbouring Lagarie House’s feature sandstone which is a similar colour and the inset western red cedar porch is to add an element of interest to the principal elevation which draws inspiration from the painted woodwork on Lagarie House. It is recommended that a planning condition will be added to any approval requiring the submission and approval of all external materials samples prior to works commencing on site to ensure these are appropriate when viewed as a whole. Lastly the councils Design and Conservation Officer notes concern that a further assessment with regards to NPF4 Policy 7 has not been included within the Planning Supporting Statement. Officers can confirm that the applicants submitted a separate further assessment as noted within section (G) of this report above. 4.8. Officers are satisfied that the proposed development, by reason of siting, scale, form and architectural style is of a sufficiently high standard and will preserve the character and appearance of this part of the Rhu Conservation Area and will not have an adverse impact on character of surrounding listed properties in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 7, LDP2 Policy 16, LDP2 Policy 17 and relevant HES guidance on development impact on historic assets. 5. Impact on Trees 5.1. The site was formerly part of Lagarie House’s lawn, however the land surrounding Lagarie House has been subdivided and is now in separate ownership. There is an established natural belt of trees and large shrubs along the South, East and West site boundaries separating it from the grounds of Lagarie House, Lagarie Lodge and the A814. To the Southern boundary of the site and also extending up the Western boundary there is a large rhododendron hedge. 5.2. A tree survey has been undertaken of the site and its surrounds as summarised earlier in the report. It is proposed to remove the large rhododendron hedge and 8no. Trees to enable this development (as shown on the Existing Block Plan), these are mainly located to the area where the new access and driveway area are proposed. It is noted that the site is covered by an Area TPO which was established on the 23.08.1983. Trees planted after this date would not be covered by this TPO, however, as the site is also within a conservation area all existing trees (with a trunk diameter over 75mm measured at 1.5m in height above ground) are automatically protected. The Tree Survey Report submitted as part of this application has categorises the trees to be removed as; one category B tree (an Oak), 6 category C trees (a Wild Cherry, an Oak, two Elm trees and two Holly trees) and one category U tree (a Rowan tree). Please note that category B trees are considered to be; trees of moderate quality, category C trees are considered to be; trees of low quality and category U trees are considered to be trees unsuitable for retention. Trees will remain along the east and west boundaries to maintain the privacy of neighbouring properties, as side from 3no. Trees which will be removed on the west boundary.
Page 26
Indicative replacement planting has been indicated on the proposed block plan to the Northern boundary, however, a detailed planning condition is recommended which will require details of the proposed compensatory tree planting to be submitted to and approved by the authority prior to works commencing. Lastly it is proposed to fully remove the substantial rhododendron hedge as this is a non-native invasive species this is considered acceptable and a planning condition is recommended to ensure that this non-native invasive species is eradicated according to best practice guidelines. 5.3. NPF4 Policy 6 requires the retention of any individual trees of high biodiversity value or veteran trees. In this instance, the survey found that no ancient or veteran trees are present on or around the site. In other respects, with regards to the biodiversity value of trees within the site, it is noted that the councils biodiversity officer initially requested that the biodiversity value of all trees within the site was recorded, however, we have subsequently received a Preliminary Ecological Assessment which concludes that the woodland within the site is considered to be of a moderate bio-diversity value. It is also noted that all trees to be removed are located within or in close proximity to the rhododendron hedge, the present of which is considered to negatively affect the biodiversity value of these trees. Therefore it is not considered that the individual trees to be removed are of high biodiversity value and that removal of the trees proposed will have an adverse impact on the ecological condition of the area, based on the Preliminary Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey Report and Officers inspection of the site, this is further supported by the additional planting of additional native species trees, to be secured by condition. It is also noted that the council’s biodiversity officer has recommended that any felled native species should be retained as deadwood to further enhance the biodiversity of the site, it is confirmed that a planning condition will be recommended requiring this. 5.4. It is recommended that any planning permission be subject to a condition requiring the submission of a tree protection plan and that all retained trees on site are protected during construction in accordance with the British Standard; BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations). 5.5. On the above basis it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 6 (Forestry, woodland and trees) and LDP2 Policy 77 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees). 6. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. 6.1. Access to the site is proposed directly from the A814. It is proposed to create the access to the site through the existing stone wall which bounds the frontage of the site, the new access will be located centrally on this frontage. The existing stone wall is considered to be listed by way of curtilage listing relative to Lagarie House (category B listed) and there is an extant listed building consent for the alterations to this wall (reference; 23/01503/LIB). 6.2. From the access junction a private driveway will continue approximately 60m into the application site to a parking and turning area laid out to the rear of the proposed house. Three car parking spaces are identified on the application drawings as well as the location for the proposed waste storage facilities. 6.3. NPF4 Policy 13 (Sustainable transport) generally aims to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise alternative means of transport to car journeys and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The requirement to submit a Transport Assessment is introduced for some developments however this relates to larger scale developments than the current proposal for a single house, this policy is largely aligned with LDP2 Policy 33 (Public Transport Infrastructure). 6.4. The elements of NPF 4 Policy 13 that are relative to the scale and nature of this development are largely aligned with the provisions of LDP2 polices 36 (New Private Accesses) & 39 (Construction Standards for Private Access), which relate to new private accesses and construction standards for private access.
Page 27
6.5. The consultation response from Council Area Roads notes that roads have no objection to the proposed, subject to any approval being subject of planning conditions relating to; access detailing (As per standard detail SD08/002 Rev.B), gradients, surfacing, visibility splays, parking & turning, drainage and any gates. 6.6. The submitted site layout drawing shows 3 no. car parking spaces and adequate turning space and notes; New access, visibility splays and wall to be as per previous approval ref; 23/01502/PP. 6.7. On the above basis and subject to the recommended roads conditions it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 and LDP2 Policies 36 & 39. 7. Infrastructure 7.1. Water supply and foul drainage is proposed to be by means of a connection to the existing Scottish Water network. The consultation response from Scottish Water does not indicate any issues with this but advises that further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted to them. Scottish water has also noted that the applicants are required to submit a wastewater application to allow Scottish Water to fully appraise the proposals. On this basis, officers are satisfied in principle that there are no known constraints in respect of public water and sewage infrastructure. 7.2. The consultation response from Scottish Water specifically advises that a surface water connection into its combined drainage system will not be accepted. Therefore, any approval will be subject to a planning condition that the development incorporate a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS). SuDS to be designed and installed in accordance with the principles of the SuDS Manual (C753). 7.3. In terms of potential flood risk, the application site, is not overlain by any recorded areas at risk to coastal, fluvial or surface water flooding with reference to the SEPA Flood Map. 7.4. It is further recommended that the provision of electric vehicle charge points, as per LDP2 Policy 34 (Electric Vehicle Charging), is subject of an informative given the new Building Standards regulations introduced after the publication of the LDP. 7.5. Subject to the above, it is considered that the proposal makes adequate provision for services infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policies 18 (Infrastructure first), 20 (Blue and green infrastructure) & 22 (Flood risk and water management) and LDP2 Polices 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure), 33 (Public Transport Infrastructure), 34 (Electric Vehicle Charging) & 61 (Sustainable Drainage Systems). 8. Planning history 8.1. The application site was formerly part of the garden ground of B listed Lagarie House. Lagarie House is dated 1901 and was designed by the noteworthy architect A N Paterson and is a 2 storey plus attic asymmetrical Arts and Crafts house. The property was a private residence until operating as a children’s home from 1949 until 1982. From researching historical maps it appears that Lagarie Lodge was built in the 1950’s. Lagarie House was initially listed in 1980 as a category C listed property however, since then the category of listing has been uplifted to category B. In 1983 planning consent was given for the change of use and sub-division of the property to form 4 flats. At this time planning permission was also given for the erection of 5 additional dwelling houses within the garden ground to the North-West & West of Lagarie House (application references; C6986 & C6994). 8.2. In 1989 there was an outline planning application for the erection of a detached 2 storey dwellinghouse with integral double garage on this application site (application reference; C8400). This application was refused and the decision was subsequently appealed. This appeal was dismissed in 1990 (appeal reference; P/PPA/SH/137).
Page 28
8.3. There was a planning application for the site (reference; 11/00528/PP) submitted in 2011 by a different applicant for the erection of 5 flats and car ports, this application was withdrawn prior to determination. 8.4. There was a planning application for 2 houses with detached garages and a proposed access from Torwoodhill Road in 2019 (reference; 19/02162/PP). This application was withdrawn prior to determination due to concerns raised by the roads department in terms of the proposed access and also concerns raised by officers in regards to the proposal for 2 houses being overdevelopment of the site / not appropriate in terms of the settlement pattern in the area. 8.5. In 2020 there was a further planning application (reference; 20/01382/PP) for a single dwelling with proposed access from the A814. At this time an accompanying listed building consent application was also submitted in relation to the formation of the vehicular access through the listed wall (reference; 20/01383/LIB). At this time officers had concerns in regards to the design and scale of the proposal in terms of its relationship to the site and surrounding residential area. This application along with the listed building consent application was withdrawn prior to determination. 8.6. In 2023 a planning application (reference; 23/01502/PP) for a single dwelling with proposed access from the A814 was submitted along with an accompanying listed building consent application in relation to the formation of the vehicular access through the listed wall (reference; 20/01383/LIB). These applications were both approved on the 23rd of May 2024 and remain extant consents. 8.7. It is noted that the planning history of the site is a material planning consideration, which has been taken into consideration and afforded weight in determining this application. In the case of the previous refusal, appeal and subsequent dismissal for outline planning permission for a single dwelling on the site, which has been noted by objectors. Officers have considered this and for the avoidance of doubt it is confirmed that the existence of a previous appeal decision, refusing planning permission, does not preclude a future planning application being submitted, nor does it prevent the Council as planning authority from determining the application. In the instance of this application a substantial period of time has elapsed since the appeal decision; within this time the relevant development plan and other relevant policy considerations have been superseded by subsequent iterations of the Local Development Plan and National Policy and Guidance and accordingly it is necessary for any decision on the current application to be assessed against these revised provisions and in relation to the current circumstances of the site and its surrounds. It is also confirmed that the approval for a single dwelling (reference; 23/01502/PP) in May 2024 on this application site accepts the principle of development for a single dwelling on this site. 8.8. On the basis of the above it is confirmed that having regard to all material considerations it is considered that the proposal is acceptable.