Public reports pack
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 Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 11 November 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2025 at 11:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 October 2025 at 11.00 am (Pages 3 - 8) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 October 2025 at 2.30 pm (Pages 9 - 10) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 October 2025 at 3.30 pm (Pages 11 - 16) 4. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR WIND FARM CONSISTING OF 9 TURBINES EACH WITH A MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 180 METRES. GENERATING CAPACITY WILL BE MORE THAN 50MW: KILLEAN ESTATE, NEAR TAYINLOAN (REF: 24/01541/S36) (Pages 17 - 66) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 5. MR KYLE KENNEDY: ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE, FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: LAND BETWEEN LAGARIE LODGE AND LAGARIE HOUSE, TORWOODHILL ROAD, RHU (REF: 25/00576/PP) (Pages 67 - 96) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
6. MR GAETANO GRIEVE: ERECTION OF 4 DWELLINGS, INSTALLATION OF SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND FORMATION OF 2 VEHICULAR ACCESSES: LAND WEST OF KOMANI AROS MAINS, AROS, ISLE OF MULL (REF: 25/01248/PP) (Pages 97 - 128) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. TARBERT CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (Pages 129 - 196) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 8. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ2 2025/26 (Pages 197 - 210) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth E1 9. EMERGENCY TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (Pages 211 - 218) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:- E1 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey and Mark Irvine. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 September 2025 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 September 2025 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 September 2025 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 30 September 2025 at 10.00 am was approved as a correct record. e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 30 September 2025 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. 4. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR WIND FARM CONSISTING OF 9 TURBINES EACH WITH A MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 180 METRES. GENERATING CAPACITY WILL BE MORE THAN 50MW: KILLEAN ESTATE, NEAR TAYINLOAN (REF: 24/01541/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
consultation on a Section 36 Application for a wind farm on the Killean Estate, near Tayinloan. This report reviewed the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, and views of consultees and representations. An extension was requested from the ECU in May to enable objections to be resolved from NatureScot, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland and National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and a consultation response to be received from West of Scotland Archaeology Service. This request was refused, and a holding objection was submitted which requested that the ECU postpone making a decision on the application until the outstanding matters had been resolved and the Council provides another response. Apart from the outstanding NATS objection all matters have been resolved, and it is intended that this report and its recommendation will provide the Council’s final consultation response to the ECU. The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report of handling. During consideration of this item the Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to adjourn the meeting at 12 noon to allow Members time to consider a competent Motion to object to this application. The Committee reconvened at 12.20 pm with all those present as per the sederunt. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. There is an unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS). Consequently, Argyll and Bute Council Object on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse Aviation Impact, contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) which requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) which requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed, and Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 which stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 2. Argyll and Bute Council also intends to object to the application on the basis of NPF 4 policies 4a and 11 Section E, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 and LDP2 Policy 30 on the basis that the application would have a cumulative, significant and unacceptable adverse impact in respect of landscape, visual and cumulative matters and that a detailed representation would be submitted following consideration of the matter at the next scheduled meeting of PPSL Committee. Having moved an Amendment which failed to find a seconder, Councillor Paul Kennedy asked for his dissent from the foregoing decision to be recorded. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 October 2025, submitted) Page 4
Page 5
Councillor Paul Kennedy left the meeting at this point. 5. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR ERECTION OF 12 WIND TURBINES WITH A MAXIMUM BLADE TIP HEIGHT OF UP TO 200 METRES AND BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) - CORR CHNOC WIND FARM: LAND APPROXIMATELY 2KM NORTH EAST OF KILMORE AND 5KM EAST OF THE CENTRE OF OBAN (25/00036/S36) The Major Applications Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on a Section 36 Application for Corr Chnoc Wind Farm on land approximately 2km North East of Kilmore and 5km East of the centre of Oban. This report reviewed the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, and views of consultees and representations. Reference was also made to a supplementary report which provided an update regarding an issue in relation to NatureScot’s consultation response to the ECU and an update on the numbers of representations submitted to the ECU. The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Argyll and Bute Council Objects to the proposal on the grounds that there are unresolved ornithology issues contrary to the provisions of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF) Policies 3 and 11 and Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) Policies 30 and 73, and it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal's acceptability in this regard at this time. NOTE - If these matters are resolved to the satisfaction of NatureScot, Argyll and Bute Council will withdraw this objection. Should the objection remain unresolved, and the proposal progresses to Public Inquiry, Argyll and Bute Council would defer to NatureScot. 2. Argyll and Bute Council does not object on landscape and visual grounds subject to the removal of Turbine 18 (as agreed by the applicant). The Council recommends the following advice is also considered by the Energy Consents Unit: Mitigation - Consideration should be given to the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect: 1. Felling of 27.44 ha of woodland and forest would be required for construction of the access including 5.63 ha of AWI woodland. Of the total felling, 10.76 ha of woodland would be restocked on site. The remaining 16.68 ha of felled woodland would not be restocked within the site, but compensation planting would be required to comply with the Scottish Government's Control of Woodland Removal Page 5
Page 6
Policy. The Applicant commits to providing appropriate compensatory planting to be agreed with Scottish Forestry and controlled through planning conditions. Where possible restocking should be local to the windfarm area and comprise native species broadleaf woodland to help offset losses of AWI woodland, enhance the surrounding landscape and potentially provide ‘positive effects for biodiversity’ (in line with NPF4 Policy 2). 2. Smart aviation lighting (ADLS) activated by approaching aircraft be implemented if it is approved for use in UK airspace before construction of the windfarm. A condition is recommended to ensure that ADLS be installed should it become available for use in the UK. 3. Argyll and Bute does not object on noise impact grounds subject to the inclusion of a condition recommended by the Council’s Noise Consultant including the apportioned limits as set out in the July 2025 response from the applicant (Metrica 15/7/25). 4. Argyll and Bute Council does not object on Public Access grounds subject to a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. 5. Argyll and Bute Council does not object on Roads grounds subject to the conditions specified by the Roads Service in their consultation response dated 14/01/25, namely: • New accesses at junction with public road, (UC32 Glenlonan)to be constructed in accordance with Operational Services Drg No SD08/001a and aligned to 90° to the public road. New accesses on UC32 to be staggered for a minimum 30m and not be directly opposite each other. • No walls, fences, hedges etc will be permitted within 2m from the channel line of the public road. Visibility splays measuring 84m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained at connections with UC32 Road. • A system of surface water drainage is required to prevent the flow of water from passing onto the public road. Any roadside ditch/drains to be culverted in agreement with Roads. • Road signs and road markings as per TSRGD to be installed as following. • Signs as per Dia 504.1 to be installed at an agreed location on the public road, (UC32) east and west of new junctions. • Road markings as per Dia 1002.1 and 1022 to be installed at new junctions at connections with UC32. • Junction signs as per Dia 601.1 to be installed at junctions with public road. 6. Argyll and Bute Council requests that the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer are considered by the ECU: While the impact to bats is unlikely to be significant, it would be advisable to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision as they are found to forage within the wind Page 6
Page 7
turbine areas. This information will feed into mitigation measures which can be altered accordingly to ensure any negative impacts to foraging / commuting bats is minimal. 7. Marsh Fritillary Butterflies: Whilst NatureScot has not objected to this issue, it is noted that there are unresolved issues between the applicant and NatureScot. It is recommended that the ECU gives further consideration to this issue before determining the application. 8. Argyll and Bute Council requests that all other conditions recommended by consultees are included in any Consent. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 October 2025 and Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 21 October 2025, submitted) Councillor Amanda Hampsey left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. Page 7
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 9
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor James Gray, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (J GRAY, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Mr Gray joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of their application. APPLICANT Mr Gray advised that he has been working as a taxi driver with Lorn Taxis for a number of years and that he also ran his own tour business. He said that he had recently purchased a new vehicle and advised that, due to demand for his tours dropping off, and no further tour business expected during the winter months, rather than work for someone else, and the additional costs associated with this, he would rather work for himself. He said that as a taxi driver he could see the need for more taxis in the town. He advised that since the survey was carried out in 2019, demand in the town had changed, especially at the weekends. He made reference to the new housing development in Dunbeg with over 2,000 homes built and no provision for them. He advised that this has led to him receiving a lot of complaints from customers that have had to wait longer for a taxi. He said this issue particularly affected the elderly whom he liked to support. Page 9 Agenda Item 3b
Page 10
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Gray that it was demand for his tour business that had dropped off and that his taxi work was more important than ever. Councillor Philand sought and received confirmation from Mr Gray that all the necessary insurances were in place for his new vehicle. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Gray thanked the Committee for their time, and he confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Brown advised that she had no issues with granting this taxi car licence and that she would be happy to approve the application. Councillor Green agreed with Councillor Brown and commented that Mr Gray had set out how the situation in the town had changed since 2019. He said he could fully understand the additional demand for taxis. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Gray and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 10
Page 11
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Alida Acherman, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Alan Morrison, Applicant Pi Davidson, Applicant’s Agent Patricia Jackson, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (A MORRISON, CURLEW COTTAGE, BRUICHLADDICH, ISLE OF ISLAY) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant and his Agent opted to proceed by way of video call and Alan Morrison and Pi Davidson joined the meeting by MS Teams. Patricia Jackson, Objector, opted to proceed by audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. Before proceeding further, the Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to address the matter of a late letter of objection from Mrs Jackson which had been received out with the time period allowed by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for making objections or representations. It was noted that it would be competent under Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 1 of the 1982 Act for the Committee to entertain a late objection or representation if they were satisfied that there was sufficient reason for it not having been made within the time allowed. It was also noted that the Applicant had been provided with a copy of the late objection. Page 11 Agenda Item 3c
Page 12
Mrs Jackson explained that this was not a new objection, but additional information to clarify her previous objection. Mr Morrison confirmed that he would have no objection to this late submission being admitted into the hearing today. Having noted the reason for the late objection, the Committee agreed to accept this into the process. The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to adjourn the meeting at 3.40 pm for 10 minutes to allow time for the late objection to be circulated and considered. The Committee reconvened at 3.50 pm with all those present as per the sederunt. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 6 of the report was followed, and the Chair invited the Applicant and his Agent to speak in support of the application. APPLICANT The following statement was read out by the Applicant. My name is Alan Morrison. I've owned Curlew Cottage since 2007 and operated it successfully as a holiday let from 2008 until 2022, when the licensing scheme was introduced. This cottage was purpose-built as a holiday let in 1985. For nearly 15 years, I operated it with no complaints from neighbours. I would like to resume that use, with Mrs Davidson managing on a day-to-day basis. and I want to do it properly. I understand Mrs Jackson has legitimate concerns about boundaries and the septic system. I take full responsibility for addressing both. I commit to installing a boundary fence with vehicle gate before accepting any guest bookings. This will clearly separate the two properties and address privacy and security concerns. I acknowledge there is an issue with where the boundary lies but I'm ready to work with Mrs Jackson on this and the fence design and will ensure it's appropriate for the rural setting. I commit to completing the septic tank replacement. The work is scheduled for the week commencing 24th November 2025, with written confirmation from our contractor, Callum Simpson of Septic Tank Services. A new system will be installed entirely within our boundary, fully compliant with SEPA regulations. No guests will be accepted until both the fence and septic tank are complete. I will provide photographic evidence to the licensing officer before we begin operating. The Licensing Officer inspected the property and recommended approval. We meet all safety requirements. We simply want to resume what this cottage was built for - providing quality holiday accommodation on the island - while being responsible, considerate neighbours. Thank you. The Applicant’s Agent read out the following statement. Page 12
Page 13
My name is Pi Davidson, and I'll be managing the day-to-day operations of Curlew Cottage as Alan's agent. I also want to acknowledge that communication between myself and Mrs Jackson has been difficult at times. I take responsibility for my part in that. Moving forward, I'm committed to maintaining professional, respectful communication, and we have local contacts who can help mediate any issues that arise. I understand that Mrs Jackson has concerns about how the property will be managed. I want to reassure the Committee and Mrs Jackson that we take neighbour relations seriously. Here's how we'll manage the property responsibly: Bins: Stored at the property and wheeled to the roadside only on collection days. The shared driveway: Our house manual includes clear instructions for navigating the access track safely, including protocols for passing other vehicles. Comprehensive house manual: All guests will receive detailed information about boundaries, expected behaviour standards, and respecting neighbours. This will be provided in pre-arrival communications, welcome emails, and a physical manual inside the property. We have two local contacts who can respond immediately to any issues raised by neighbours or guests. I live on Jura and travel to Islay regularly. I'm accessible and committed to addressing any concerns quickly and professionally. We want to be exemplary neighbours and responsible operators. This property operated successfully for 15 years - we're asking for the opportunity to demonstrate we can do so again. Thank you. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR Mrs Jackson asked Mr Morrison where the evidence was that the cottage was used as a holiday let between 2020 and 2022. She said that she bought her property at the beginning of 2020 and had been assured at that time by Mr Jackson and Mrs Davidson that Curlew Cottage had been used as a holiday let in the past and was no longer used. She said that during 2020 it had been occupied 3 or 4 times by family and friends. She said the claim made that it was operating as a holiday let until 2022 was not correct. Mr Morrison advised it was the case that it was last let in 2022. He referred to dealing with the Covid period when no one was visiting. He said that he’d had a good relationship with his previous neighbour and had previously had a number of regular visitors to the cottage. He said that he was disappointed that due to the incoming licensing legislation and being a busy time personally for himself because of post Covid work, he was not able to continue letting it. He said it was the case that they were letting it until the new licensing regime came into place. Page 13
Page 14
OBJECTOR Mrs Jackson said that she hoped the issue with the septic tank would be addressed. She commented that it would be really close to her boundary. She advised that the boundary fence remained an issue and referred to trying and failing to make contact with Mr Morrison to discuss this. She said she would like Mr Morrison’s assurance that he would meet with her to have a proper discussion about where the boundary was. She said it was a complicated boundary which cut diagonally across the land. She said it was going to be difficult to put a fence up along the boundary. She advised that the other issue was privacy. She referred to seating outside the front of Curlew Cottage. She explained that as the land was higher there than her land, those seats looked directly into her dining room where her family sat quite often. She said that people sitting on the seats outside could be heard from inside her house and that she could see them watching her. She said she would like the seating to be removed from the front of the house. She advised that at the moment it was located 2 metres from where she got out of her car and that people were able to watch her coming and going. She said she wanted Mr Morrison to address that. She advised that this would have a huge impact on her day-to-day life, being presented with different people every week and the potential for hundreds of different dogs in the area over the year. She said it would be a massive impact on her life. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr Morrison advised that he had no questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Forrest asked the Licensing Standards Officer for her view on whether the seats overlooked the neighbour’s house. Ms Acherman advised that when she visited the property she looked out of all the windows from inside the property. She said she did not sit on the seats which were positioned in front of the middle of the property. She said she did not notice at any point that she was looking into someone’s dining area or kitchen when she was at the front of the property. Councillor Green asked Mr Morrison if the proposed fence would resolve Mrs Jackson’s concerns regarding overlooking. Mr Morrison said he was not certain. He explained the boundary fence would come from the front southeast of the cottage. He said the corner of the cottage adjacent to Mrs Jackson’s property had an accessible pathway, with a gentle sloping ramp to the front door that continued around the front of the property. The location of the seating was next to the front door in the middle of the front elevation. Mr Morrison advised that the fence would be on his boundary and that he did not think it would be a solid barrier type fence. Mrs Jackson agreed that a post and wire fence with vegetation would be more in keeping with the area. She said the seating at the front elevation and the path were higher than her parking area and window into her dining area. She advised that unless the fence was really high, anyone sitting there would be able to look over. SUMMING UP Objector Page 14
Page 15
Mrs Jackson referred to her objection about the septic tank and said she hoped that would be dealt with. She advised that she still had misgivings about the significant effect this proposed short-term let would have on her and her family’s privacy and security. She said that until a gate was installed securely children and dogs would not be able to be kept under control within Curlew Cottage grounds. She commented that if Mr Morrison was saying he would address this, she would just have to wait and see. Applicant Mr Morrison said that he and his family have always visited the cottage 3 to 5 times per year with their dog. He advised that they never let their dog loose in the front garden off lead. He referred to sheep being in the adjacent field. He confirmed that he would make it a house rule that only dogs on a lead can be walked from the house. He said that he shared Mrs Jackson’s frustration about the septic tank. He advised that the problem came about just after Covid and had never been a problem before. He said he found getting a locally based contractor very difficult as they were very busy on the island. He advised that the contractor was local to Lochgilphead and a specialist in septic tanks and that he was sure he would do a first-class job. He confirmed that he would be happy to work with Mrs Jackson in respect of the boundary. He commented that Mrs Jackson and her family had done an excellent job renovating their property and grounds. He referred to running the property as a holiday let in the past with people staying there year after year. He said he was confident that things would settle down and the issues Mrs Jackson had would be resolved. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Brown said she shared the issues highlighted by the Objector. She said these issues were not new and were often highlighted by neighbours. She commented that she appreciated that this property was not a short-term let when Mrs Jackson took possession of her home. She advised that she hoped, with a good bit of give and take on both sides that these issues could be resolved. She said she would be happy to grant this short-term let licence. Councillor Howard sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that the Committee would not be able to include a condition regarding the boundary fence as this was a private matter for parties to resolve and fell out with the licensing regime. He said Members could, if they wished, make a recommendation in this regard. Councillor Green asked the Council’s Solicitor if a condition could be included preventing pets from being in the property until the fence was erected. Mr Walker advised that it may be best to make a recommendation that this be included in the guest handbook but he would double check and get back to the Committee. Councillor Armour referred to the property being a self-catering property from 2007 to 2020. He said he assumed that due to Covid they did not have anyone staying there from 2020 to 2022 as it was very difficult to operate anything at all during that time. He commented that if this was a family home there could be potentially more than the recommended maximum of 6 people for the short-term let residing there. He said there would not be people there all the time. He advised that he could see where the Objector was coming from in respect of concerns about privacy but commented that this was part of Page 15
Page 16
living next door to someone else. He advised that if someone wanted total privacy then they would need to have a house well away from everyone else. He added that as someone that used to have a holiday let business, he met some very nice and interesting people and that there were very few that caused problems. He said that he had noted that there were people on the island that would be able to deal with any problems that came up. He said he understood the Objector was looking for privacy but as this had been run successfully as a holiday let until 2022, he could not see what will have changed and that he would have no issue with approving this application. Councillor Philand said he was reassured that Mr Morrison intended to help his neighbour with the issues raised and that he wished to address these. He said he believed that would happen. He also noted that a number of the recommended conditions associated with the licence would address some of these issues. He hoped that these conditions and working with Mr Morrison to address the other issues, would give Mrs Jackson some reassurance. He said he would be happy to grant this licence. Councillor Green said he was satisfied that the Applicant had responded to the various concerns raised from the neighbouring property. He said he was likewise minded to support this application. Mr Walker referred to the earlier question about a condition to prevent dogs coming to the property until the fence was erected. He advised that the condition relating to anti-social behaviour could be used to raise any issues in respect of dogs. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Alan Morrison subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, damage to property, and wood burning stoves/open fires, and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and late objection, tabled) Page 16
Page 17
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth This Supplementary report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 application for a wind farm located on the Killean Estate, near Tayinloan consisting of 9 turbines each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 180m. Generating capacity will be more than 50MW _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 24/01541/S36/ECU00004927 Applicant: The Scottish Government Consultation Proposal: Section 36 Consultation for wind farm located on the Killean Estate, near Tayinloan, consisting of 9 turbines each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 180m. Generating capacity will be more than 50MW Site Address: Killean Estate, near Tayinloan ________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 This Supplementary Report is for the consideration of Members. A detailed Report of Handling was prepared for PPSL Committee on the 22nd October 2025. At said committee the Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report which provided a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Application for Killean wind farm. This report reviewed the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, and views of consultees and representations. An extension was requested from the ECU in May to enable objections to be resolved from NatureScot, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland and National Air Traffic Services (NATS) and a consultation response to be received from West of Scotland Archaeology Service. This request was refused, and a holding objection was submitted which requested that the ECU postpone making a decision on the application until the outstanding matters had been resolved and the Council provides another response. Apart from the outstanding NATS objection all matters have been resolved, and it is intended that this report and its recommendation will provide the Council’s final consultation response to the ECU. The Committee was asked to agree the recommended response to the ECU set out in the report of handling. During consideration of this item the Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to adjourn the meeting to allow Members time to consider a competent Motion to object to this application. The Committee reconvened and agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. There is an unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS). Consequently, Argyll and Bute Council Object on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse Aviation Impact, contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) which requires that project Page 17 Agenda Item 4
Page 18
2. design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) which requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed, and Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 which stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 2. Argyll and Bute Council also intends to object to the application on the basis of NPF 4 policies 4a and 11 Section E, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 13 and LDP2 Policy 30 on the basis that the application would have a cumulative, significant and unacceptable adverse impact in respect of landscape, visual and cumulative matters and that a detailed representation would be submitted following consideration of the matter at the next scheduled meeting of PPSL Committee. Conclusion 2.1 Following PPSL Committee on the 22nd October, Officers informed the ECU of Members decision and advised them that matters would be considered further at the November Committee and thereafter the final response from Argyll & Bute Council would be provided. 3. Recommendation It is recommended that Members consider the contents of this report. Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 3rd November 2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 4th November 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 18
Page 19
Argyll & Bute Council Development & Economic Growth This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 application for a wind farm located on the Killean Estate, near Tayinloan consisting of 9 turbines each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 180m. Generating capacity will be more than 50MW Reference No: 24/01541/S36/ECU00004927 Applicant: The Scottish Government Proposal: Section 36 Consultation for wind farm located on the Killean Estate, near Tayinloan, consisting of 9 turbines each with a maximum blade tip height of up to 180m. Generating capacity will be more than 50MW. Site Address: Killean Estate, near Tayinloan (A) THE APPLICATION The Section 36 Application comprises the following key elements: • Up to 9 wind turbines, each with a maximum tip height of 180m • At each wind turbine, associated low to medium voltage transformers and related switchgear • Permanent wind turbine foundations • Hardstanding areas for crane erection at each wind turbine • Two new watercourse crossings and 14 existing crossings which may need to be upgraded • Approx. 10.5km of access tracks, comprising 5.58km of new tracks and 4.92km of existing tracks to be upgraded • Upgraded site access from the existing junction with the A83 • Temporary turning area to facilitate access on opposite side of road to site access • Onsite underground electrical cables and cable trenches • Substation compound • A temporary construction compound for office welfare and materials storage • Up to 6 borrow pit search areas • The potential for onsite concrete batching, the location of which would be confirmed prior to commencement of development once need is confirmed • Felling of 41.3ha hectares of forestry and associated compensatory planting. • Habitat management and biodiversity improvements as set out in Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (OBEMP) The expected operational life is 50 years from the date of commissioning. Connection to Electricity Grid - The proposal is likely to be connected to the grid network at Carradale substation, approx. 11.2km southeast of the site. Works required to connect to the national grid would be the subject of a separate consenting process. Page 19
Page 20
(B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) There is an unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS). Consequently, Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse Aviation Impact, contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 which requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 which requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed, and Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 which stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. Note: If NATS withdraw their objection and subject to any conditions they recommend being attached to any grant of consent Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Should the objection remain unresolved, and the proposal progresses to Public Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to NATS. (2) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to landscape and visual impact subject to conditions to secure the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect being attached to any grant of consent: • Aircraft Detection Lighting System • Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate. • Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform. • Compensatory planting should be undertaken within the Killean Estate. Argyll & Bute Council and Scottish Forestry should be consulted on the location, extent, and composition. • Management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church. (3) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to conditions to secure appropriate archaeological mitigation being attached to any grant of consent following further consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. (4) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any grant of consent. • An appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such time as they are established and no longer vulnerable to over- browsing. Page 20
Page 21
• While the impact to bats is unlikely to be significant, it would be advisable to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision as they are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. (5) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Councils Noise Consultant. (6) Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre- development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event; and, • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. (7) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Access subject to the condition to secure the recommendation of the Access Officer being attached to any grant of consent: • Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. (8) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to provision of the turning area across from the site access subject to the following conditions being attached to any grant of consent. • Exact details and specifications of the design of the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. • Exact details and specification of the restoration plan for the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. These shall include details of timescales and landscaping. • A condition to limit the turning area to an appropriate temporary period to be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. (9) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent. (C) CONSULTATIONS ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES NatureScot (18th November 2024) – advised the ECU they objected until further collision risk information regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area was provided. That while there are significant adverse landscape and visual effects, they do not raise issues of national interest. They noted the presence of Leisler’s bats within the footprint of the proposal, and that further advice Page 21
Page 22
would be provided separately. They defer to Argyll & Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council in terms of effects on locally designated landscapes. NatureScot (23rd January 2025) (Leisler bat advice) – advised the ECU that the bat surveys indicate that there is at least a moderate level of bat activity within the survey area. Of note is the occurrence of Leisler’s bat, which is a rare and high-risk species. Kintyre is not currently acknowledged to be within the Leisler’s bat range; however, the bat survey provides evidence of a wider distribution of this species in Scotland than is currently known. Bat Mitigation - as the Applicant is proposing to keyhole turbines into existing forestry, this can increase the risk of bat fatalities due to the increase in forest edge habitat close to the turbines and associated infrastructure. NatureScot advise that feathering is routinely applied to the turbine blades below cut-in speed during operation. This measure can help reduce the risk of bat casualties by 50%. If feathering is implemented, NatureScot would ask that monitoring is carried out for 3 years post-construction to assess changes in bat activity. NatureScot note that the Applicant was unable to have bat data analysed through Ecobat as it was unavailable. NatureScot believe it is now available and advise that the Applicant has the data analysed, if possible, to provide an independent assessment on the level of bat activity at the site. NatureScot (30th May 2025) (response to additional information provided regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area) – advised the ECU there are natural heritage interests of international importance, but they will not be adversely affected. This response should be read in conjunction with their other advice provided on landscape & visual, ecological and bat impacts. Applicant Response to NatureScot’s further comments (18th June 2025) – Applicant provided a note on NatureScot’s 30th May response to the ECU on issues relating to ornithology, including Greenland White-fronted Geese, Survey Quality, Golden Eagle, Black Grouse and Red-throated Diver. RSPB Scotland (29th November 2024) – advised the ECU they shared NatureScot's concern regarding collision risk for Greenland White-fronted Geese and would comment further on this once the information was provided. They advised that the Outline Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (oBEMP) is appropriate and welcome the proposals that have been included. They note that felling will be required should the proposal be consented. It is unclear where the Compensatory Planting (CP) is to be provided. They recommend that it is delivered as low-density native shrub and broadleaf woodland, and that planting on good quality open ground habitats is avoided. RSPB (17th June 2025) (response to additional information provided regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area) – advised the ECU they have no further comments to make on the revised collision risk model for Greenland White- fronted Goose. They do not object. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (20th November 2024) – advised the ECU the proposal does not raise historic environment issues of national significance, and they do not object. They recommend that any trees forming the woodland backdrop to the Killean Estate damaged or removed by works to upgrade the wind farm access tracks, should be replaced. The access tracks should be designed to avoid direct impacts on the Category A listed Doll’s Houses and avoid impacts on their setting, and removal of the temporary bellmouth upon completion of turbine delivery. Page 22
Page 23
Scottish Forestry (25th September 2024) – advised the ECU compensatory planting should be secured by a condition. Furthermore, the appropriate consenting route required to accommodate construction, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 41.3ha would be the Section 36 consent. Restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would also be via the Section 36 consent. Transport Scotland (TS) (4th October 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure approval of details of the means of access to the trunk road, the route for abnormal loads, abnormal load accommodation measures required, any necessary additional signing or temporary traffic control measures, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP), and wheel washing facilities. In addition, advisory notes are provided relating to works within the trunk road boundary. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (2nd October 2024) – have advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions being attached to any consent to secure finalised plans for borrow pit management and restoration prior to commencement of development (if not attached SEPA object), and a Finalised Peat Management Plan. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) (25th September 2024) – advised the ECU they are satisfied the proposal should not have any significant impact on migratory salmonid fish habitat providing the construction phase is conducted according to current environmental regulations. ADSFB are mindful that migratory salmonid fish (sea trout) are present in the lower reaches of the Killean Burn, Tayinloan Burn, Clachaig Water and Carradale Water which may be affected by any deterioration in water quality caused during construction. ADSFB advise that in the event of consent being granted monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish is undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines. Scottish Water (26th August 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. They provide advice on Drinking Water Protected Areas and Surface Water. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (6th February 2025) – advised the ECU the PLHRA is satisfactory. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (30th August 2024) – advised the ECU that, subject to conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management they have no objection. NATS Safeguarding (23rd August 2024) – advised the ECU the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria and they object. NATS Safeguarding (14th July 2025) – advised the ECU that it is always their preference to identify mitigation and, put in place the delivery framework before withdrawal of their objection. However, they can confirm that they do have an identified mitigation that with the commitment of both parties can be delivered prior to the development commencing. Glasgow Airport (9th September 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) (4th October 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Page 23
Page 24
Highlands & Islands Airport (22nd October 2024) – advised the ECU they required an updated Instrument Flight Procedure Assessment report and submitted a holding objection. Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL) (27th January 2025) advised the ECU that an updated Instrument Flight Procedure impact assessment has been provided which confirms the proposal will have no impact on the IFPs serving Campbeltown Airport. Therefore, HIAL remove their holding objection. Campbeltown Community Council (3rd October 2024) – advised the ECU they object on the following grounds: proximity to A83 and visibility, industrialisation of Kintyre landscape, adverse impact on tourism, adverse visual impact, flooding on the A83, adverse impact on peat deposits, use of outside contractors instead of local firms, road delays caused by delivery of abnormal loads, and movement at night will cause disruption due to noise and vibrations. West Kintyre Community Council (4th October 2024) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of landscape & visual impact (including cumulative), adverse impact on tourism, increase in local flooding, adverse noise and visual impact for nearby properties, possible ill health effects, lack of information on battery storage plans, and adverse ornithological impact. East Kintyre Community Council (22nd August 2024) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of lack of full economic assessment on tourism attractions (based on Kintyre), and adverse visual impact. Tarbert & Skipness Community Council (TSCC) (3rd October 2024) – have advised the ECU they object on the grounds of the previous refusal on this site (WIN- 130-3), adverse visual impact, length of consent sought (50 years), approval would set bad precedent, adverse impact on recreation & tourism, Adverse impact on natural heritage and ornithology, cultural heritage impacts and adverse impact of aviation Lighting. BT (29th August 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Arqiva (28th August 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to a condition to mitigate the impact of any degradation of television and radio reception caused by the wind turbines. Joint Radio Company (29th August 2024) – advised the ECU the proposal is cleared subject to a condition to secure 100m Micrositing with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. North Ayrshire Council (4th October 2024) – advised the ECU that consideration should be given to the potential impacts on the North Arran NSA. Argyll & Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Architect (10th February 2025) - recommends no objection in respect of landscape and visual interests subject to conditions to secure: an Aircraft Detection Lighting System, Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate, Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform, Compensatory planting within the Killean Page 24
Page 25
Estate. Argyll & Bute Council should be consulted, in addition to Scottish Forestry, on the location, extent and composition of this planting, and management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WOSAS) (28th August 2025) – does not recommend an objection and provides general comments and advice on direct and indirect physical impact issues and setting and cumulative impact issues. In terms of cumulative impact WOSAS find they cannot support the proposed encroachment onto lower ground that is more densely populated with known archaeological sites and monuments. WOSAS does not believe that an objection solely based on predicted adverse impacts on the historic environment would be likely to be sustained. However, they believe that the broader impacts they have referred to might be employed to add weight to the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment of the proposal. Should the Council determine to object on these or on other grounds they would be pleased to advise further as required. Similarly, if a potential archaeological condition or conditions are required for submission to the ECU or at a later stage, they will be pleased to suggest a suitable form of words. Applicant Response to WOSAS (16th September 2025) – They are pleased there is no objection recommended on cultural heritage grounds, and that there is no specific issue with the predicted cultural heritage impacts. There is a comment that there may be too much focus of the assessment on individual heritage assets. This may be how the assessment is set out, however any relevant relationships to other monuments / relevant historic landscapes, as far as it is possible to identify these, would have been addressed as part of that. The comments are referring to a broader, and more subjective appreciation of the historic environment. As this remains quite vague, they are not sure there is much they can offer by way of a detailed response; other than to emphasise that they have considered wider landscape relationships as part of the setting impact assessment. If there is a specific monument or group of monuments that they have not suitably assessed, they would be happy to respond accordingly – noting there is a large range of heritage assets/archaeological sites which span a large period. West of Scotland Archaeology Service – a copy of the Applicant’s response was sent to WOSAS. At time of writing no further response has been received. Local Biodiversity Officer (23rd September 2024) – provides advice on the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and its associated SSSI, Habitats Regulations assessment, Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP), Habitat Losses and Impact, peatland, European Protected Species, Species Protection Plan, Protected Species, ecological clerk of works, ornithology. The Local Biodiveristy Officer recommends that the applicant should include an appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such a time that they are established and no longer vulnerable to over-browsing and while the impact to bats is unlikely to be significant, it would be advisable to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision as they are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. Noise Consultant (3rd March 2025) – advise that good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified. The most significant of these issues are: • The study area for Killean wind farm includes receptors that are exposed to noise levels from the operational Deucheran wind farm and consented Clachaig Glen Page 25
Page 26
wind farm. It has been shown that the application of apportioned noise limits will be necessary to ensure cumulative noise impacts do not exceed the derived noise limits at some receptors. It is recommended that the Applicant considers this and suggests suitable values. • The omission of the details of any screening attenuation and concave ground corrections that have been applied. The inclusion of the applied values in the reporting is suggested within good practice but is not a formal requirement, however, it has potentially led to an inability to accurate replicate the applicant’s calculations. • The receptor labelled H27 ‘South Beachmore Farm’ is incorrectly named ‘High Crubasdale’ in Tables 11.7, 11.8, 11.9 and 11.10. • Confirmation there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. • The proposed noise condition does not contain the partial levels. Nor include a suitable control for amplitude modulation. Following a satisfactory response there would be no reason to object on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from the proposal. A revision based on the proposed condition should be provided. Applicant response to Noise Consultant (1st October 2025) – have considered the Council’s Noise Consultants review and note that some minor points have been raised. They will be pleased to agree a wording for a revised noise condition which will include updated limits that more thoroughly account for potential cumulative operational impacts and that include controls for amplitude modulation (AM). This will provide further comfort that the requirements of ETSU-R-97 will be met in practice. They consider that this can be addressed during the agreement of conditions process. Additionally, they acknowledge the error highlighted relating to receptor location coordinates and will be happy to correct this. Finally, they confirm that from their understanding, the previous consent for the reinstatement of a residential dwelling at Braids has lapsed and there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. Noise Consultant (1st October 2025) – have reviewed the clarifications provided by the applicant and would respond as follows: • They agree that the apportioned limits can be agreed with the conditions (if consent is granted) • They note that no further information on screening or valley correction has been provided – it will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the agreed noise limits can be met. They are unable to verify this in the absence of this information. • Confirmation of typos is fine. • Confirmation that there are no derelict properties is fine. • Confirmation that the applicant will accept an AM condition is also fine. On that basis, they conclude that satisfactory clarifications have been provided or can be dealt with at the conditions stage of the application, and their previous conclusions regarding the acceptability of the scheme still stand. Page 26
Page 27
ABC Roads and Amenity Services (5th September 2024) – no objection. The site access connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, Transport Scotland should be notified. Flood Risk Assessor (7th November 2024) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre- development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Access Officer (8th July 2025) – no objection subject to a condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction. Please note: the above are summaries and the full consultee responses can be viewed on the Energy Consent Unit and Argyll & Bute Council websites. (D) HISTORY: 16/03400/S36 – S36 consultation for proposed Killean Wind Farm, Killean Wind Farm, Tayinloan – Objection submitted to ECU 18th October 2017. 16/01313/PP - Erection of 14 wind turbines (13 with a blade tip height of up to 126.5m (and hub height of up to 80m) and one with a blade tip height of up to 115.5m (and hub height of up to 69m)), upgrading of permanent access, formation of site access tracks, erection of permanent anemometer mast, control building and substation, watercourse crossings and temporary construction compound, Clachaig Glen wind farm, Land North East of Muasdale – Refused 21st September 2017. Both the above wind farms were considered at a conjoined Public Inquiry which commenced on the 9th of January 2019 the outcome of which is detailed below: WIN-130-3 Killean – Scottish Ministers refused the application on the 18th of December 2019 PPA-130-2064 (Planning Permission Appeal) Clachaig Glen – Scottish Ministers allowed the appeal and granted planning permission on the 18th of December 2019. 22/00613/S36 – S36 Consultation regarding the proposed Clachaig Glen wind farm and battery storage located approximately 20km north of Campbeltown and 1.8km north-east of Muasdale on the west coast of the Kintyre – Objection submitted to the ECU on the 19th of January 2023. WIN-130-7 Clachaig Glen – Following objection from the Planning Authority, a Public Inquiry was held on various dates between August and December 2023, the outcome of which was that Scottish Ministers granted Section 36 consent on the 8th of November 2024. (E) PUBLICITY: As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application. Page 27
Page 28
Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for Section 36 applications, the applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Further information on this is contained in the Killean wind farm Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report, July 2024 available on the ECU website (reference: ECU00004927). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority any letters of representation are considered by the ECU. At time of writing, the ECU are in receipt of 21 objections and one general comment. The objections are from residents within the local area. The main concerns raised relate to: • Public Inquiry – objectors would like to be kept informed and included. • Historic Environment, Archaeology, and Listed Buildings (including the Dolls Houses) • Biodiversity - birds (including eagles), badgers, bats, otters, red squirrels, pine martens, and Greenland White fronted geese. • Scale of development • landscape and visual impact • Impact of aviation lighting on dark skies • Misleading photomontages of VP’s • Noise and Acoustic Environment, health, amplitude modulation, infrasound • Private water supplies • Transportation – impact on roads, businesses, and homes • Amenity impacts on the property ‘Braids’ from turbines T14 and T17 • Impact on the local economy and tourism • Walking routes and the Kintyre Way • Previous refusal on this site for smaller wind farm • Duration of consent – increase from 25 – 50 years • Aviation/Navigation Safety • Compensation/money/community benefit • Maintenance and disposal of used turbines • Scotland does not need to produce any more energy • Health & wellbeing • Impact on house at Kilmory 1968m • Impact on peat • Flooding • Cumulative Impact - High level of applications in Kintyre • Planning Policy LDP & NPF4 Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: Please note that the representations above have been summarised, and the full letters of representation are available on the ECU website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: Page 28
Page 29
(i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes EIAR presented in 4 volumes: • Volume 1: Written Statement • Volume 2a: Figures (excluding LVIA) • Volume 2b: LVIA Figures and Visualisations • Volume 3: Technical Appendices • Volume 4: Non-Technical Summary Key topics covered in the EIAR include: • Introduction • Chapter 2. Proposed Development Description • Chapter 3. Design Evolution and Alternatives • Chapter 4. Approach to EIA/Climate Change, Legislative and Policy Context Chapter 5. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Chapter 6. Cultural Heritage Assessment • Chapter 7. Ecology • Chapter 8. Ornithology • Chapter 9. Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeological Assessment • Chapter 10. Traffic and Transport • Chapter 11. Noise • Chapter 12. Aviation, Radar, and Defence • Chapter 13. Other Issues (Socioeconomics, Telecommunications, Infrastructure, Shadow Flicker, Carbon Balance). • Chapter 14. Schedule of Mitigation • Chapter 15. Summary of Residual and Cumulative Effects In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • Planning Statement • Design Statement • Pre-Application Consultation Report (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: NatureScot will advise the ECU (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): Not required proposal accompanied by full EIAR. (v) A report on the impact of the proposal e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No Page 29
Page 30
(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 considered in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations considered in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises 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 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 33 – Minerals Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy 31 – Minerals Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals 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 Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Page 30
Page 31
Policy 75 - Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Policy 76 - Development Impact on Local Nature Conservation Sites (LNCS) Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 - Geodiversity (ii) List of all other relevant planning considerations considered in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013 • Scottish Energy Strategy (2017) • Onshore Wind Policy Statement (2022) • Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (2023) • Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership of Renewable Energy Developments, Scottish Government, 2019 • Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) • The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study, 2017 (LWECS) • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment – Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (2013) • Scottish Natural Heritage – Visual Representation of Wind Farms Guidance (Version 2.2, 2017) • Scottish Natural Heritage - Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape Guidance (Version 3a, 2017) • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (2019) • Scottish Government, Draft Planning Guidance: Biodiversity, 2023 • The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 • Managing Change in the Historic Environment • PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) • Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) • PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage (Jan 2008) • Views of statutory and other consultees • Planning history of the site • Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters (G) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an EIAR: No, an EIAR was required. (H) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No - PAC is not required for S36 applications. (I) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (J) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (K) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No – due to unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Page 31
Page 32
(L) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 3rd October 2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 6th October 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 32
Page 33
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01541/S36 COMMITTEE REPORT PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 Any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any authorisation given includes a deemed planning permission. Consequently, there is no need for a planning application to be made to the Council. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee. 1.2 The Development Plan is not the starting point for considering S36 applications. The reason for this is that sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3 Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings, and objects of architectural, historical, or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4 It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5 Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6 The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if consent is granted by Scottish Ministers. If an objection is raised by the Council, Scottish Ministers are obliged to hold a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to grant consent. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Any Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. If consent is granted the Council as Planning Authority is responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, ongoing monitoring, and enforcement. Page 33
Page 34
1.7 This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the ECU for consideration before a decision is made. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 An extension was requested from the ECU in May to enable objections to be resolved from NatureScot, RSPB Scotland, and National Air Traffic Services and a consultation response to be received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. This request was refused, and a holding objection was submitted which requested that the ECU postpone making a decision on the application until the outstanding matters had been resolved and the Council provides a further response. Apart from the outstanding NATS objection all matters have been resolved, and it is intended that this report and its recommendations will provide the Council’s final consultation response to the ECU. 3. SPATIAL AND SETTLEMENT STRATEGY 2.1 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas establishes acceptable scales of development in three different zones. The wind farm site is located within Remote Countryside, which only supports specific categories of development. This includes renewable energy related development. In principle, Policy 02 supports renewable energy and ancillary development in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other relevant LDP2 Policies. With respect to the requirement for developments to accord with all other relevant policies, particular attention is drawn to Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA) - requires that proposals in or affecting a LLA must demonstrate that: a) any significant adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance; b) The proposal is supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment and has taken account of the content of any relevant Argyll & Bute Landscape Capacity Assessment; and c) The location, scale, design, materials and landscaping would be of a high standard and would safeguard or enhance the special qualities and character of the Local Landscape Area. Part of the existing access and proposed temporary turning area to be located across from it on the other side of the road would be in the West Kintyre (Coast) LLA. Given the temporary nature of this it is acceptable subject to condition to secure submission of the exact details and specification of the temporary turning area and reinstatement proposals (including landscaping) for agreement with the planning authority prior to commencement of works. A condition is also recommended to ensure that the turning area is temporary, and use is restricted. 2.3 Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect Page 34
Page 35
the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an EIAR which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development.’ 2.4 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. In this case, due to the outstanding objection from National Air Traffic Services the proposal is contrary to development plan policy relating to the spatial and settlement strategy which requires proposals to be consistent with all relevant policies. 2.5 Having due regard to the above, this proposal is contrary to the provisions of LDP 2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1 Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. 3.2 This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. 4. LOCATION, NATURE, AND DESIGN OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The proposal is located off the A83, at approx. 2.5km east of Tayinloan, on the Kintyre Peninsula. The site extends to approx. 1,052 ha and comprises upland plateau moorland and conifer forest, locally known as the Killean Estate. 4.2 Within the site are several small lochs, from north to south these include Loch Dirigadale, Loch a' Ghlinn Bhig, Loch Luireach, Loch Fionn-Ghleann and Loch na Naich. Several watercourses also run through the site - primarily the tributaries of Allt Chaltuinn to the north and Killean Burn to the west. Killean Burn passes through the west of the site and flows westwards into the Sound of Gigha. 4.3 The A83 passes northwards, approx. 1km to the west of the western boundary of the site. 4.4 Proposed Development – the main components are: • Up to 9 wind turbines, each with a maximum tip height of 180m Page 35
Page 36
• At each wind turbine, associated low to medium voltage transformers and related switchgear • Permanent wind turbine foundations • Hardstanding areas for crane erection at each wind turbine • Two new watercourse crossings and 14 existing crossings which may need to be upgraded • Approx. 10.5km of access tracks, comprising 5.58km of new tracks and 4.92km of existing tracks to be upgraded • Upgraded site access from the existing junction with the A83 • Temporary turning area to facilitate access on opposite side of road to site access • Onsite underground electrical cables and cable trenches • Substation compound • A temporary construction compound for office welfare and materials storage • Up to 6 borrow pit search areas • The potential for onsite concrete batching, the location of which would be confirmed prior to commencement of development once need is confirmed • Felling of 41.3ha hectares of forestry and associated compensatory planting. • Habitat management and biodiversity improvements as set out in Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (OBEMP) 4.5 It is anticipated that construction would take approx. 15 months, depending upon seasonal working and weather conditions. The proposal is expected to operate for up to 50 years following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure would be undertaken. Infrastructure 4.6 Connection to Electricity Grid – The proposal would be connected at Carradale Substation, located approx. 11.2km southeast of the site. The connection would be comprised of buried 132kV cables and/or Overhead lines (OHL). The exact arrangement of this grid connection is subject to detailed design by SSEN Transmission, the Transmission Operator (TO). Any final grid connection route and associated consents would be the responsibility of the TO and this route would require further studies and would be subject to a separate consenting process. 4.7 Scottish Water – have advised the ECU that they have no objection. Advice is provided on Drinking Water Protected Areas, and Surface Water. 4.8 Drinking Water Protected Areas – they have confirmed there are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposal. 4.9 Surface Water – for reasons of sustainability and to protect customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water have advised that they will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system. 4.10 Private Water supplies (PWS) – SEPA have not provided any advice on private water supplies. Page 36
Page 37
5. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO- ECONOMIC BENEFITS 5.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 states that proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio- economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP 2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed in terms of net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. 5.2 Socio-Economic Impact - The proposal would deliver some economic benefits during its construction and operation. It is estimated that during construction, the proposal could generate £5.9 million Gross Value Added (GVA) and 80 jobs in Argyll & Bute and £18.1 million GVA and 260 jobs in Scotland. During the operational phase, annually the proposal could generate £0.3 million GVA and 3 jobs in Argyll & Bute; and £1.1 million GVA and 12 jobs across Scotland. 5.3 The Applicant has stated that through local partnerships they will support communities to develop skills sought after within the onshore wind sector, to secure jobs and optimise the opportunities associated with the proposal. They have also committed to prioritise local companies in the provision of contracts during construction and operation. 5.4 The proposal will contribute to public finances through the payment of non- domestic rates, which could amount to £0.7 million annually, or £35.6 million over a 50-year operational lifetime. This will support the funding of local public services in the context of challenging public sector finances. 5.5 To support local ambitions and needs, it has become customary practice to offer community benefit funding, with Scottish Government guidance suggesting £5,000 per annum per installed MW. This level of funding would generate around £0.3 million every year for the local economy, equivalent to £14.9 million over the lifetime of the wind farm and could support up to 5 jobs locally. 5.6 The local area also could take part in the Applicant’s Local Electricity Discount Scheme, reducing the household energy bills in the community, as well as shared ownership options. 5.7 The latest position from the Applicant is they now have internal approval to formally offer a revenue share to the community. It is anticipated that the Information Memorandum will be ready for presentation to the community groups around the date of committee. They expect to be able to offer the Community an opportunity to purchase up to 5% of the project post construction. 5.8 The economic benefits associated with this proposal relating to job creation and benefits to the local economy from the influx of construction workers, by spending on accommodation, eating out and visiting local attractions are a relevant consideration, which has been considered. Community Benefit is not however, a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications, as there is no planning mechanism available to secure it. If consent were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit either directly with the local Page 37
Page 38
community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process. 5.9 Having due regard to the above it is considered a degree of net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits typical of such developments will be provided. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewable of LDP2 in this regard. 6. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER 6.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, visual impact, noise, and shadow flicker have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for renewable developments to be assessed in terms of impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity noise, and shadow flicker (including cumulative). Noise 6.2 ABC Noise Consultant – has advised that good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified. The most significant of these issues are: • The study area for Killean wind farm includes receptors that are exposed to noise levels from the operational Deucheran wind farm and consented Clachaig Glen wind farm. It has been shown that the application of apportioned noise limits will be necessary to ensure cumulative noise impacts do not exceed the derived noise limits at some receptors. It is recommended that the Applicant considers this and suggests suitable values. • The omission of the details of any screening attenuation and concave ground corrections that have been applied. The inclusion of the applied values in the reporting is suggested within good practice but is not a formal requirement, however, it has potentially led to an inability to accurate replicate the applicant’s calculations. • The receptor labelled H27 ‘South Beachmore Farm’ is incorrectly named ‘High Crubasdale’ in Tables 11.7, 11.8, 11.9 and 11.10. • Confirmation that there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. • The proposed noise condition does not contain the partial levels. Nor include a suitable control for amplitude modulation. 6.3 Following a satisfactory response, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from Page 38
Page 39
the proposed development. A revision based on the proposed condition should be provided. 6.4 Applicant’s response to Noise Consultant – they have considered the Noise Consultants review and note that some minor points have been raised. They will be pleased to agree wording for a revised noise condition which will include updated limits that more thoroughly account for potential cumulative operational impacts and that include controls for amplitude modulation (AM). This will provide further comfort that the overall requirements of ETSU-R-97 will be met in practice. They consider that this can be addressed during the agreement of conditions process. Additionally, they acknowledge the error highlighted in the Councils Noise Consultants review relating to receptor location coordinates and will be happy to correct this. Finally, they confirm that from their understanding, the previous consent for the reinstatement of a residential dwelling at Braids has now lapsed and there are no derelict properties with residential planning status in the study area. 6.5 ABC Noise Consultant - have reviewed the clarifications provided by the applicant and would respond as follows. They agree that the apportioned limits can be agreed with the conditions (if consent is granted). They note that no further information on screening or valley correction has been provided – it will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure the agreed noise limits can be met. They are unable to verify this in the absence of this information. Confirmation of typos is fine. Confirmation that there are no derelict properties is fine. Confirmation that the applicant will accept an AM condition is also fine. On that basis, they would conclude that satisfactory clarifications have either been provided or can be dealt with at the conditions stage of the application, and therefore their previous conclusions regarding the acceptability of the scheme still stand. Shadow Flicker 6.6 A shadow flicker assessment is required when any properties lie within 10 rotor diameters of a wind farm. This is in line with Scottish Government online renewables planning advice on ‘onshore wind turbines’ which states that: “where separation is provided between wind turbines and nearby dwellings (as a rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem.” 6.7 Analysis was performed on all properties within ten rotor diameters of any turbine. This shadow flicker assessment is based on turbines with a 155m rotor diameter, and a 100m micro-siting allowance for infrastructure. As such, this 100m distance is added to the ten-rotor diameter (1,550 = 10 * 155) m distance to give a total distance of (1,650 = 1550 + 100) m from any turbine. Analysis was undertaken for shadow flicker at all properties within 1,650m from any wind turbine. 6.8 With an allowance for 100m micro-siting, there are no inhabited houses within 1,650m of any wind turbine and thus no flicker is predicted. A property referred to as Braids is scoped out of the assessment as it is uninhabited and would require planning permission to make habitable. The building currently lacks a roof, windows, and some walls, and is therefore not considered to be a building used for long-term residential purposes. It is therefore concluded that Killean Wind Farm will not cause a material reduction to residential amenity owing to shadow flicker. Page 39
Page 40
6.9 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Noise Consultant being attached to any grant of consent it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 in this respect. 7. SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how significant landscape and visual impacts have been addressed, recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. Policy 4 a) - Natural Places of NPF4 states that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments are assessed against landscape and visual impacts. 7.2 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect - has undertaken a review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal. 7.3 The proposal - A previous application for a wind farm on a similar site was refused following a Public Local Inquiry held in 2019. This original application comprised a development of 15 turbines, 149.9m high to blade tip and extended more to the east than the current proposal with around 6 turbines being located on open moorland. The current application comprises 9 turbines up to 180m high to blade tip. Most of the turbines are located within a conifer plantation with 3 turbines lying in more open ground close to the woodland edge. 7.4 A Design Statement has been produced which outlines opportunities, constraints and decision-making influencing the design. This document notes the previous application for a wind farm on this site and its refusal in 2019. It outlines the changes that have occurred to Scottish planning policy since then with the adoption of NPF4. It states that there is recognition that the reasons for refusal of this previous scheme are important but that it is not possible to remove all landscape and visual impacts given the increase in turbine height and it is acknowledged that ‘in many instances the visual effects that would arise would be of a similar nature’. One of the key aims has been to avoid a notable increase in visual impact when compared with the previous scheme and the document seems to express the view that the reduction in the number of turbines from 15 to 9 would be key to achieving this. 7.5 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - accords with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (GLVIA3). The visualisations are clear and consistent with best practice guidance although the maps showing viewpoint locations are too small to read. 7.6 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that the LVIA generally under-estimates landscape and visual effects. They have reviewed the findings from the original Killean LVIA and note some key differences with the judgements made in the LVIA for the current scheme. The LVIA for the original scheme concluded that significant effects would occur on a larger number of Landscape Page 40
Page 41
Character Types (LCTs) and on views from the Islay Ferry and Knapdale whereas the current LVIA does not. The current proposal has a smaller number of turbines although these are over 30m higher than the turbines proposed in the original scheme. The extent of visibility of the proposal (despite the reduction in the number of turbines) is similar to that of the original scheme. 7.7 The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2017 - The proposal lies within the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic (6) Landscape Character Type (LCT). The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (ABLWES) finds the combined landscape and visual sensitivity of this landscape to be high-medium to wind turbines >80m high. 7.8 The study identifies major constraints as potential cumulative effects with other wind farms. It notes that while no designated landscapes apply to this LCT, it abuts a coastal APQ in places and turbines visible on prominent skylines above the coastal fringe may indirectly affect special qualities. Key cumulative issues are highlighted in the study and these include: ‘Larger turbines and/or more extensive wind farm developments sited on the outer edges of the Kintyre uplands where they would be likely to significantly increase landscape and visual impacts on the settled coastal edge of Kintyre and on views from Arran and Gigha and would also further erode the established pattern of wind farm developments largely associated with the less sensitive core of these uplands’. 7.9 The guidance set out for the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT advises that there is very limited scope for additional large typology turbines to be accommodated within this landscape principally due to potential cumulative effects that could occur on the coastal fringes of Kintyre and on views from Arran and Gigha. The guidance advises that significant intrusion on adjacent settled and small-scale landscape character types and on Arran and Gigha should be avoided by siting larger turbines well back into the interior of these uplands. 7.10 Effects on landscape character - The LVIA finds that significant effects would arise on the character of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT within which the proposed wind farm would be sited. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with this finding and with the judgement that these effects would extend up to around 6km or so from the wind farm. The LVIA concludes that there would be no significant effects on any other LCT within the LVIA study area. 7.11 Contrary to the findings of the LVIA, the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that the wind farm would incur significant adverse effects on the Coastal Plain LCT which forms a triangular and flat area of farmland, woodland and moor extending west to Rhunahaorine Point. This is a small LCT, and effects would be widespread. The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect also disagrees with the judgement made in the LVIA regarding effects on the character of the Coastal Parallel Ridges LCT which covers the whole of the island of Gigha. Gigha lies less than 3km from the west coast of the Kintyre peninsula at its closest point across the narrow Sound of Gigha. The very large turbines would be prominent in views from Gigha and from the Sound of Gigha and the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that significant adverse effects would occur on the sense of remoteness and naturalness associated with the island and the immediate waters surrounding it. It should be noted that the recent consent of the Clachaig Glen II wind farm will diminish the current perceptual qualities associated with Gigha and its immediate seascape if constructed. Page 41
Page 42
7.12 There would also be some localised adverse effects on the Rocky Mosaic LCT where the proposal would be seen principally in the vicinity of Glenacardoch Point and where the creation of the access off the A83 would involve the removal of vegetation and road widening near Killean. Sections of hedgerow are proposed to be removed near the site access. Some removal of trees near the site access also formed part of the previous proposal considered at PLI but this does not appear to be mentioned in the EIAR. While the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect considers that there will be some significant adverse effects on parts of the Rocky Mosaic LCT, they will be limited in extent and effects on this LCT would not be widespread. 7.13 Effects on designated landscapes - The proposal is not located in a designated landscape but would lie within 1.7km of the West Kintyre Coast Local Landscape Area (LLA). There is no citation for this, but it principally comprises settled and more intricately patterned coastal fringes with key special qualities likely to comprise a diverse landform and landcover pattern and views along the coast and out to sea to the west to Gigha, Islay and Jura. The LVIA concludes that the proposal would not have significant effects on this LLA. It is considered that there would be significant adverse effects on some of the key qualities of this LLA but that overall, the integrity of the designation would not be compromised given the limited visibility of the proposal particularly from the more diverse parts of the coast and lack of intrusion in westward views. 7.14 Visual effects - The location of the proposal on west-facing outer slopes of the Kintyre peninsula would increase visibility from the sea, coast, and Gigha. It is considered that significant adverse effects on views would principally occur from the following locations: • The Kintyre Way where the proposal would be seen at close quarters as the route is aligned through the site. VP’s 1 and 2 illustrate the close views that would occur from this nationally important route. While the proposal would be seen from the Kintyre Way where it is aligned along the coast in the vicinity of Rhunahaorine Point, effects would be particularly severe along approx. 7km of the route east of Tayinloan. The proposal would be likely to introduce new visibility of a large-scale wind energy development along approximately 5km of the route but would be seen together with the consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm principally between the eastern edge of the site and Loch na Naich for around 2km distance (The cumulative ZTV Figure 5.36 indicates theoretical visibility of the Clachaig Glen II within Killean Glen and across the Killean wind farm site but from field observations it is considered that woodland (including non-productive woodland aligning the Killean burn) and local landform features would be likely to screen views so that the Killean wind farm would only be seen from this part of the Kintyre Way). Both developments would be likely to result in an overwhelming effect for walkers who would be surrounded by very large wind turbines. • The Sound of Gigha and Gigha - The proposal would be visible across much of Gigha and the Sound of Gigha. There will be fairly consistent visibility of the proposal from the single-track road which runs the length of Gigha, from settlement which is principally located on the more sheltered eastern side of the island and from walking routes along the coast and on the hills on the higher spine of the island. These views are illustrated by VP’s 6 and 8. The recently consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm would have a similar visual influence in views from the Sound of Gigha and Gigha. Both wind farms would Page 42
Page 43
appear to lie near each other and would increase the extent of visibility of wind turbines seen on the skyline of the Kintyre uplands • The west Kintyre coast - there would be extensive visibility of the proposal from the open Coastal Plain (VP 3 from Tayinloan jetty, VP 4 Point Sands). There would also be visibility in the vicinity of Glenacardoch Point. (The A83 is tucked into the base of rising and often wooded slopes and the raised beach edge south of Clachan and views of the proposal would be limited from this route as it traverses the western coast of Kintyre). The recently consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm will be seen in close association with this proposal and would increase the extent of large wind turbines seen on the skyline of hills to the east from the coast. • Knapdale - There would be visibility of the proposal from the southern part of the Knapdale peninsula with this likely to be restricted to more open coastal locations due to the extensive woodland present. More distant operational wind farms located in the central part of the Kintyre peninsula are already clearly seen in the view but are not prominent due to the size of turbines, their partial screening by landform and their distance. Viewpoint 11 from the B8204 illustrates how the turbines will appear overly large in relation to the height of the northern uplands of the Kintyre peninsula increasing the impact on views. It should be noted that the recently consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm would appear to overlap with this proposal from this part of Knapdale. If built, this consented scheme would lessen the effects of the proposal from this location. • The Islay Ferry - Similar to the account of views from Knapdale above, the Council’s Landscape Architect considers that while alone the proposal would incur significant adverse effects due to its size and prominent position on east- facing slopes as the ferry approaches West Loch Tarbet, should the consented Clachaig Glen be built, these effects would be reduced where both schemes appear to overlap. 7.15 The LVIA concludes that significant night-time effects would arise from three viewpoints (two of these along the Kintyre Way at Killean and Loch na Naich VPs 1 and 2). The Council’s Landscape Architect considers that night-time lighting would additionally extend the duration of significant effects from the Sound of Gigha and from Gigha (the night-time visualisation from VP6 at Ardminish is useful but it cannot compare with the brightness of wind turbine lighting seen in the field). 7.16 Residential Visual Amenity Assessment - The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) identifies 12 residential properties lying within 2km of the proposal. One of these properties (Braids which lies very close to the wind farm) is uninhabited and 8 properties (lying in the vicinity of Largie Farm on lower wooded slopes) have no theoretical visibility of the proposal due to the screening provided by landform and trees. The RVAA found that effects on the remaining 3 properties would not be significant. Although the Councils Landscape Architect has not been able to visit each of the properties considered in the RVAA, based on the visual material produced in the LVIA, they consider the findings to be reasonable. Page 43
Page 44
7.17 Cumulative landscape and visual effects with other proposed wind farms - This proposal has greatest potential to incur significant adverse cumulative effects with the consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm which lies within 1km to the south. Significant adverse combined cumulative effects would occur on landscape character and on views from the Kintyre Way, the Sound of Gigha and Gigha. The Killean proposal will increase the horizontal extent of turbines seen on the upland skyline but, in a scenario where the Clachaig Glen II proposal is constructed, it would not introduce new larger wind turbines to views. 7.18 Conclusions - A key aim of the design has been to avoid a notable increase in visual impact when compared with the previous Killean scheme which was refused in 2019. The location of the previous scheme on open west-facing slopes opposite Gigha and the size of the turbines were key factors influencing significant landscape and visual effects and the reasons for refusal. While this proposal has fewer turbines, they are larger. There have been some improvements to the siting of turbines but only as far as turbines have been removed from sensitive open moorland to minimise effects on Golden Eagles. The site still comprises west- facing slopes lying on the outer edges of the Kintyre peninsula which are more open to views from the Kintyre coast and Gigha and its immediate seascape. The Councils Landscape Architect considers that some of the objectives identified in the Design Statement, for example the aim to offset the distance between turbines and the Kintyre Way, would achieve no meaningful mitigation in terms of reducing the prominence of very large wind turbines seen near this route. 7.19 The previous Clachaig Glen wind farm proposal was preferred at the conjoined inquiry held with Killean in 2019 principally because of its reduced landscape and visual effects. This was due in part to its more visually contained siting and smaller turbines (115-126m high to blade tip). The Clachaig Glen II proposal (comprising larger turbines than the original consented scheme) was recently consented on appeal in November 2024. The reporter considered that while this wind farm would have significant effects on landscape character extending 3km from the development, it would not harm the West Kintyre LLA, would not dominate the settled small scale Rocky Mosaic LCT or affect or detract from the character of the coast. In terms of the effects on views, the Reporter concluded that significant effects would occur on Gigha and the Sound of Gigha, the Kintyre Way, and Point Sands but it would not intrude on views from the west. The Councils Landscape Architect considers that the Clachaig Glen II significantly increases the intrusion on Gigha and the Sound of Gigha when compared with the original Clachaig Glen scheme which comprised smaller turbines and additionally benefitted from some screening by landform. 7.20 Changes have occurred to national planning policy since the 2019 Conjoined Killean and Clachaig Glen Wind Farms PLI. NPF4 Policy 11e ii states that significant landscape and visual impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will be acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised’ effects. 7.21 The proposal would have significant adverse effects on landscape and coastal character and on the character of the island of Gigha. Significant adverse effects on views will principally occur from Gigha Sound, from the settled eastern coast and small spine of hills on Gigha, the Kintyre Way and the Rhunahaorine Point/Point Sands area. Visible aviation lighting of 4 turbines will increase the duration of adverse effects on views. Page 44
Page 45
7.22 Cumulative landscape and visual effects would principally arise between the consented Clachaig Glen II wind farm and this proposal. As there is a strong likelihood that the consented Clachaig Glen II scheme will be constructed, it is important that the Killean proposal is not considered in isolation. In many key views, for example from Point Sands (VP4) and from Gigha (VPs 6 and 8), the Killean proposal will appear as an extension to Clachaig Glen II, exacerbating significant adverse effects, for example, in terms of increasing the extent of turbines seen on skylines looking east but not being the first to introduce new much larger and more prominent wind turbines to the scene. Put simply, the consent of Clachaig Glen II will already incur significant adverse effects on key views from Gigha, Gigha Sound and part of the west Kintyre coast and this will reduce landscape and visual sensitivity and the magnitude of change likely to occur should the 9 turbines of the Killean proposal be added in a similar location. This is confirmed by the cumulative wirelines produced in the EIAR for VPs 4, 6 and 8. In views from the A83 both wind farms will generally be seen together with the presence of Clachaig Glen II, in VP 9 near Clachan for example, likely to result in the effects of the Killean proposal being not significant if subsequently constructed. A similar reduction in the sole effect of Killean would occur from VP 11 in Knapdale if Clachaig Glen II were present. 7.23 Recommendation in terms of landscape and visual matters - The proposal would have similar significant adverse landscape and visual effects to the previous proposal which was refused in 2019. Changes to national planning policy and the consent of the Clachaig Glen II wind farm have a bearing on the decision to be made on the acceptability of this proposal in terms of its landscape and visual effects. While the Councils Landscape Architect considers that the effects of this proposal on its own could be termed more than local in extent because of the significant effects on landscape/coastal character and on views from Gigha and the Sound of Gigha that would arise (lying up to 9km distance), the likely construction of the Clachaig Glen II wind farm would moderate these effects. The Councils Landscape Architect therefore recommends that no objection should be raised in respect of landscape and visual interests subject to the following conditions being imposed: Visible aviation lighting - The Applicant’s proposal for a condition to allow for implementation of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (outlined in the Schedule of Mitigation) Chapter 14 of the EIAS is welcomed. While the Clachaig Glen II reporter’s findings on conditions requiring periodic review of aviation lighting are acknowledged the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect considers that the large number of wind farm proposals across Argyll & Bute requiring aviation lighting is a major concern and such a condition is imperative to reduce the cumulative landscape and visual effects of such lighting Woodland and wider landscape mitigation and enhancement – the Councils Landscape Architect considers that the Applicant should adopt a more ambitious approach to forest restructuring using the wind farm development as a catalyst for more effective and speedier restructuring of productive forestry which would enhance both landscape character and biodiversity and fit with the aims of NPF4 Policy 3. Wider landscape enhancement should also be undertaken as should measures to ensure the longevity of screening woodland. A condition should be set up to require the applicant to undertake: Page 45
Page 46
• Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan (the increases above the agreed forest plan which are currently proposed are relatively small) including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate (both new woodlands and management and expansion of existing riparian woodlands, for example those within the valley of the Killean Burn). • Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland (this tying in where appropriate with measures set out in the BEMP to enhance Black Grouse habitat) to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform. • Compensatory planting should be undertaken within the Killean Estate. Argyll & Bute Council should be consulted, in addition to Scottish Forestry, on the location, extent and composition of this planting. • Management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church (as seen in Cultural Heritage Figure 6.4) 7.24 Key visualisations for the Committee to review include: VP1: Loch na Naich – Kintyre Way, VP2: Killean – Kintyre Way, VP3: Tayinloan Jetty, VP4: Point Sands, VP6: Ardminish Bay, Gigha, VP8: Creag Bhan, Gigha, VP9: A83 near Clachan (Sheet A illustrates how the proposal would be seen together with Clachaig Glen 2), and Figure 6.4: Killean Estate Buildings 7.25 NatureScot – in summary, have advised the ECU while there are significant adverse landscape and visual effects, these do not raise issues of national interest. Furthermore, they defer to Argyll & Bute Council and North Ayrshire Council in terms of effects on locally designated landscapes. NatureScot advise that the nature and scale of the proposal at this location is such, that it cannot be accommodated without significant adverse landscape and visual effects, including cumulative effects and night-time effects. They consider that given the proposed siting, scale, and type of development, it would be very challenging to overcome the significant adverse effects identified within the site parameters. They would encourage the Applicant to reconsider the design, particularly where the proposal would have significant adverse effects on parts of the west coast of Kintyre, the Isle of Gigha, and the Sound of Gigha. This is likely to require a reduction in the vertical height of the turbines which may reduce some of the severity of effects. 7.26 North Ayrshire Council - advised the ECU that consideration should be given to the potential impacts of the North Arran NSA when determining the application. Officer’s Conclusion 7.27 Based on the advice of the Council’s Landscape Architect, NatureScot, and North Ayrshire Council it is concluded that the proposal does not warrant an objection on landscape and visual grounds. This is however subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Landscape Architect being attached if the proposal receives consent. Page 46
Page 47
7.28 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Landscape Architect being attached to any grant of consent it is concluded that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of NPF4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION 8.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 does not require impacts on tourism to be considered. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on tourism and recreation. 8.2 Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. 8.3 As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. 8.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 04 – Sustainable Development and 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS 9.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in NPF4. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2 The Council’s Access Officer has advised that the 9 wind turbines will be visible for over 5 miles of the Kintyre Way which is the most heavily used path in the area affected by the proposal being popular with walkers, cyclists, and horse riders. The height of the turbines is understood to be 180m and this is inevitable. This is the latest of around 16 wind farms in operation or under construction in the Kintyre area. The Access Officer does not know whether this concentration of wind farms has had a positive or negative effect on tourism in the area. The 9 turbines will be close to the Kintyre Way; however, this will not Page 47
Page 48
be the only location where this is the case. This is not unique to the Kintyre Way with many long-distance paths in Scotland and the rest of the world passing close to wind farms. 9.3 The Access Officer is concerned that the developer has not produced an Access Plan which details how they will manage public access during the construction phase, especially the upgrading of the main access road which is a designated Core Path C094(b) and follows the route of the Kintyre Way. The developer and their contractors are required to keep the Core Path open throughout the works and will need to manage the construction to allow this. Elsewhere contractors have been able to upgrade forestry tracks without closing them to the public although this has required additional planning and the employment of banksmen etc. Whilst it is permissible to divert sections of the route on to adjacent routes this will require a Section 208 Path Diversion Order for which the developer should allow at least 8 weeks for consultation. This is only possible for one part of the affected section of the Core Path and some improvements to the alternate route via Braids may be required before it can be used, as will the permission of the landowner. 9.4 In summary the Access Officer does not have any objection to the proposed wind farm. The Applicant will need to consider how they manage the construction phase of the project to ensure that the public can continue to exercise their legal rights of access, and the Access Officer is happy to discuss this with them at that stage. A condition requiring the developer to prepare an Access Plan for approval by the Council prior to the commencement of construction will ensure that this happens. The Access Officer is also happy to meet the developer and the contractor to advise on the draft Access Plan prior to its submission. 9.5 Having due regard to the above subject, to the condition to secure an Access Plan being attached to any grant of consent it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and Policy 32 - Active Travel of the LDP2. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 10.2 Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – advised the ECU that, subject to the conditions to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management, they have no objection. 10.3 Highlands & Islands Airport initially submitted a holding objection and advised the ECU they required an updated Instrument Flight Procedure impact assessment report. An updated Instrument Flight Procedure impact assessment was Page 48
Page 49
submitted which confirmed the proposal will have no impact on the IFPs serving Campbeltown Airport. Therefore, HIAL removed the holding objection and confirmed they have no objections. 10.4 National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS) has advised the ECU the proposal conflicts with their safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, they object. They further advised the ECU that it is always their preference to identify a specific mitigation and, if possible, put in place a delivery framework before actively offering a conditional withdrawal of their objection. However, they have confirmed that they have an identified mitigation that with the commitment of both parties can be delivered prior to the development commencing. 10.5 Glasgow Prestwick Airport and Glasgow Airport have advised the ECU they have no objection. 10.6 Having due regard to the unresolved NATS objection it is concluded the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the LDP2. Note: If NATS withdraw their objection, and the ECU is minded to grant consent for this proposal. Any conditions recommended by NATS to secure any necessary mitigation and the conditions recommended by the Ministry of Defence should be attached. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS 11.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. 11.2 BT advised the ECU that the proposal should not cause interference to their current and presently planned radio network. Arqiva advised the ECU they have no objection and recommend a planning condition to mitigate the impact of any degradation of television and radio reception caused by the wind turbines. Joint Radio Company - advised the ECU the proposal is CLEARED - subject to 100m Micrositing (as stated in the EIAR) - with respect to radio link infrastructure operated by the local energy networks. 11.3 Having due regard to the above subject to the condition recommended by Arqiva and the Joint Radio Company it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS Page 49
Page 50
12.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads have been addressed, including during construction. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads. Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of LDP2 acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads requires that accesses which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland. 12.2 Transport Scotland (TS) have advised the ECU the nearest trunk road to the site is the A83(T) which would provide access into the development via a private access track. A turning area on the west side of the A83(T) opposite the site access is required to assist with the right turn manoeuvre required to enter the site. Based on the review undertaken, Transport Scotland can confirm that they are satisfied with the submitted EIAR and have no objection to the development in terms of environmental impacts on the trunk road network. They would, however, request that the following conditions be attached to any consent that may be granted: details of the proposed means of access to be submitted for approval, the proposed route for any abnormal loads to be submitted for approval, details of any accommodation measures to be approved and implemented, any additional signing or temporary traffic measures must be undertaken by a recognised QA traffic management consultant prior to the movement of any components, Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to be submitted and approved, and wheel washing facilities to prevent vehicles depositing debris on the trunk road. Transport Scotland advise that in addition to the conditions the Applicant should be informed of their advisory notes which set out the requirements for works within the trunk road boundary. 12.3 ABC Roads and Amenity Services - have advised they have no objection. The site access connects directly to the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road, Transport Scotland should be notified. 12.4 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by Transport Scotland it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads in this regard. It is recommended that the conditions required by Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled Page 50
Page 51
monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments, Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance support the key policies and provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) – have advised the Energy Consents Unit that their view is that the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance, and they do not object. 13.3 Historic Scotland advise that there are 4 Category A listed buildings immediately adjacent to the application site boundary with the potential to be affected by the construction of access tracks for the proposal. These are the ‘Doll’s Houses,’ Killean. The following additional Category A listed buildings may also be affected by the proposal: Killean House (LB12005) and Killean Chapel (St John’s), Killean Burial Ground (LB12004). There are also several nearby scheduled monuments which may be affected. These include the following: Killean, fort NE of (SM3179), Beacharr, standing stone & long cairn (SM182), Dun Beachaire, dun (SM3143), and Low Clachaig, cup marked boulder 915m E of (4352). 13.4 Whilst the proposal would be visible in key views associated with the settings of several heritage assets, HES are content that the severity of impacts is such that the turbines would not result in significant adverse impacts to the level where they would object. 13.5 They have also considered the impact of the proposed bellmouth and site access on the setting of St John's Church, church, burial ground, and carved stones, Killean (SM3030). This monument consists of the remains of the old parish church of Killean and its burial ground. A simple, unicameral church was erected here probably in the second half of the 12th century, it was altered several times of the following centuries before being abandoned in 1770. The setting of the monument is focused on the sense of place. Its location on the flat coastal plain meant it was visible from much of the surrounding area. There is little modern development west of the road which adds to a sense of separation and means that its place in views up and down the coastline remains uncompromised. 13.6 A bellmouth is proposed just to the north of the monument, to the west of the A83, to facilitate the transport of turbine components approaching from Campbeltown and turning right up the access track to the proposed wind farm. The ground will be reinstated upon completion of turbine delivery. Whilst components are likely to be visible from St John's and the tranquillity and isolation of the church’s setting compromised when in use, the bellmouth will be temporary and then removed upon completion of turbine delivery. Provided this can be ensured HES do not object to these impacts. 13.7 HES have also previously advised that if any trees forming the woodland backdrop to the Killean Estate are damaged or removed by works to upgrade the wind farm access tracks, they should be appropriately replaced. It is recommended that these concerns should be addressed by condition if the proposal received consent. 13.8 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – does not recommend an objection and provides general comments and advice on direct and indirect physical impact Page 51
Page 52
issues and setting and cumulative impact issues. In terms of cumulative impact WOSAS find they cannot support the proposed encroachment onto lower ground that is more densely populated with known archaeological sites and monuments. WOSAS does not believe that an objection solely based on predicted adverse impacts on the historic environment would be likely to be sustained. However, they believe that the broader impacts they have referred to might be employed to add weight to the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment of the proposal. Should the Council determine to object on these or on other grounds they would be pleased to advise further as required. Similarly, if a potential archaeological condition or conditions are required for submission to the ECU or at a later stage, they will be pleased to suggest a suitable form of words. 13.9 Applicant Response to WOSAS (16th September 2025) – note that there is no objection recommended on cultural heritage grounds, and that there is no specific issue with the predicted cultural heritage impacts. There is a comment that there may be too much focus of the assessment on individual heritage assets. This may be how the assessment is set out, however any relevant relationships to ther monuments/relevant historic landscapes, as far as it is possible to identify these, would have been addressed as part of that. The comments are referring to a broader, and perhaps more subjective appreciation of the historic environment. As this remains quite vague, they are not sure there is much that can be offered by way of a detailed response; other than to emphasise that wider landscape relationships have been considered as part of the setting impact assessment. If there is a specific monument or group of monuments that in the view of WOSAS has not been suitably assessed the Applicant would be happy to respond accordingly – noting that there is a large range of heritage assets/archaeological sites which span a large period. 13.10 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – were sent a copy of the Applicants response to ascertain whether they had any further comments. At time of writing no further response has been received. 13.11 Having due regard to the above subject to the conditions to address the concerns of Historic Scotland (tree protection/planting and timeous reinstatement of the temporary bellmouth) and any conditions recommended by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service following further consultation it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; 19 – Scheduled Monuments; 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes; and 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance of the LDP2 14. HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK 14.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been addressed. Policy 30 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative). Policy 55 - Flooding of LDP2 provides guidance on the type of development that will be permissible within specific flood risk areas. Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals requires flood risk assessments, and drainage impact assessments, to accompany applications where required. Page 52
Page 53
14.2 The Council’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised that they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre-development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 years plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 14.3 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Flood Prevention Officer it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 55 – Flooding; and Policy 57 Risk Appraisals of LDP2. 15. BIODIVERSITY 15.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on biodiversity, including birds have been addressed. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering all proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 3 – Biodiversity of NPF4 requires proposals to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 5 – Soils of NPF4 supports the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to GHG emissions reduction targets on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland. A detailed site-specific assessment will be required for development on peatland which will include the net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on the natural heritage, including birds and to be assessed against impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator (including cumulative). Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity requires proposals to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. 15.2 NatureScot initially advised the ECU the proposal could affect internationally important natural heritage interests, and they objected until further information regarding the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area was provided. This would enable them to carry out an appraisal of these effects and help the ECU determine the proposal. NatureScot also noted the presence of Leisler’s bats within the footprint of the proposal and advised they would provide further advice on this is due course. 15.3 NatureScot provided advice to the ECU on bats at the site. Bats - The bat activity surveys indicate that there is at least a moderate level of bat activity within the survey area with Nyctalus, Myotis and Pipistrellus species being recorded. Of note is the occurrence of Leisler’s bat (Nyctalus leisleri), which is considered a rare and high-risk species in Scotland. Kintyre is not currently acknowledged to be within the Leisler’s bat established range; however, the bat activity survey provides evidence of a wider distribution of this species in Scotland than is currently known. Page 53
Page 54
15.4 Bat Mitigation - As the Applicant is proposing to keyhole turbines into the existing forestry, this can increase the risk of bat fatalities due to the increase in forest edge habitat close to the turbines and associated infrastructure. We would advise that feathering is routinely applied to the turbine blades below cut-in speed during operation. This measure can help reduce the risk of bat casualties by 50%. If feathering is implemented, we would ask that monitoring is carried out for three years post-construction to assess changes in bat activity. We note that the Applicant was unable to have bat data analysed through EcoBat as it was unavailable at the time. We believe it is now operational and would advise that the Applicant has the data analysed, if possible, to provide an independent assessment on the level of bat activity at the site. 15.5 NatureScot have provided the ECU with a response to the additional information provided by the Applicant, which they requested in their initial response. In summary, they advise that there are natural heritage interests of international importance on the site, but their advice is that these will not be adversely affected by the proposal. They refer to their previous advice in relation to landscape and visual impacts and ecological impacts. 15.6 Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area - The Proposal is located approx. 540 m to the south-west of Loch an Fhraoich, a component loch of the Kintyre Goose Roosts Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar Site, and the Kintyre Goose Lochs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Rhunahaorine Point SSSI (also part of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA) is located approx. 1.7 km to the north-west of the proposal. These sites are all designated for overwintering populations of Greenland white-fronted geese (GWFG). 15.7 The site’s status means that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) apply or, for reserved matters, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Consequently, ECU is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before it can be consented (commonly known as Habitats Regulations Appraisal). 15.8 NatureScot’s advice is that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the GWFG feature of the SPA. Consequently, ECU, as competent authority, is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest. They advise that based on the information provided, their conclusion is that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. 15.9 RSPB Scotland – initially advised the ECU that they shared NatureScot's concern regarding the assessment of collision risk for Greenland White-fronted Geese. They would be pleased to provide further comment on this element once the information requested by NS has been provided. Having considered the revised collision risk model for Greenland White-fronted Goose they have advise the ECU they have no further comments and do not object. 15.10 Outline Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (oBEMP) - RSPB Scotland considers the oBEMP to be appropriate and welcomes the outline proposals therein. Page 54
Page 55
15.11 Compensatory Planting - It is noted that infrastructure felling of 33.4 ha and management felling of 7.9 ha will be required should the proposal be consented, but it is presently unclear where the required Compensatory Planting (CP) is proposed to be delivered. RSPB Scotland recommends that wherever possible in an Argyll context, CP is delivered as low-density native shrub and broadleaf woodland, and that planting on good quality open ground habitats is avoided. 15.12 SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) have advised the ECU that a planning condition in relation to Borrow Pit restoration should be attached to any consent if granted. If this will not be applied, then SEPA object. 15.13 Peat Management Plan - SEPA note the proposal to use a depth of 2m peat as restoration of the borrow pits. As most of the borrow pits appear to lie on shallower peat it is unlikely restoration of peat, tying into existing water tables will be successful. SEPA also note the applicant proposes to use this infill of acrotelm and catotelm peat as 'substrate for afforestation' on top of restored borrow pits. Any form of tree planting on top of peat is likely to result in its desiccation; loss of its carbon storing potential and cause it to no longer be peat. SEPA are of the opinion this would therefore be viewed as peat and would require a waste management license. 15.14 SEPA therefore request a condition is attached to any consent for the submission of detailed finalised plans for borrow pit management and restoration prior to commencement of construction on site. In the meantime, they recommend the applicant explores further re-uses of the excavated peat. SEPA recommend the submission of a Finalised Peat management Plan is also conditioned. 15.15 Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) - SEPA have reviewed Technical Appendix 7.1 and the Outline Biodiversity Action Plan and confirm they have no detailed comments to make on these aspects of the proposal. However, they recommend the applicant explores the possibility of the use of peat, even if in small volumes, in conjunction with the proposed drain blocking to improve existing bog habitat. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.16 Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment (PLHRA), Stage 1 Checking Report advised the ECU that no further response is required. The PLHRA is satisfactory. The checking report has determined that the PLHRA is sufficiently robust in all respects, although some recommendations may be made for clarity, no further revisions are required. 15.17 The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) – has provided the following advice and recommendations. 15.18 The Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA/Ramsar/SSSI – lies 540m north of the site boundary and 2.2km from the closest wind turbine. Its Qualifying Feature is - wintering population of Greenland white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons). The Local Biodiversity Officer notes NatureScot’s response of the 28th of October 2023 where they: ‘Advise that the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA and its associated SSSI, so a Habitats Regulations assessment will be required. Effects on the geese could include collision mortality, barrier effects, disturbance during construction and Page 55
Page 56
operation, and cumulative effects. The applicant has included a Habitats Regulation Appraisal Report with an overall conclusion ‘the Proposed Development would have no adverse effect on the integrity of the Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA.’ The Local Biodiversity Officer agrees with the findings in this report and the mitigation measures of no construction work for the access site taking place to the west of the A83 during October to March to prevent disturbance during feeding. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the objectives within the Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) to include a long-term enhanced monitoring programme and GPS-tagging to obtain more data. 15.19 Predicted Habitat Losses and Impacts – has advised that none of the predicted habitat losses (acid flush, blanket bog, wet modified bog, wet heath, marshy grassland, and hedgerow) are likely to have a significant impact and there would be no effects on other habitats of conservation value. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the habitat and peatland enhancement objectives within the BEMP and the continued monitoring of habitat and peatland restoration throughout the lifetime of the wind farm. They advise that the applicant should include an appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such a time that they are established and no longer vulnerable to over-browsing. 15.20 Peatland - One wind turbine will be located on blanket bog but on peat less than 1m depth. Design of the proposal has changed to avoid areas of deep peat as much as possible and reduce habitat loss of blanket bog. Floating access tracks will be adopted where the levels of peat exceed 1m in depth. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the objectives within the BEMP for peatland enhancement and monitoring throughout the lifetime of the wind farm. Summary of European Protected Species 15.21 Bats – Seven species of bats were identified in the surveys. The surveys did not identify any area of high bat activity that would require buffering in the wind farm design. No loss of potential bat roosts. No significant impact to bats with a low- risk site for collision with wind turbines. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the avoidance of bat preferred habitat features with a minimum 50m buffer maintained between wind turbine blade tips and the nearest woodland edge. The Local Biodiversity Officer makes the following recommendation: While the impact to bats is unlikely to be significant, it would be advisable to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision as they are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. 15.22 Otter – Evidence of otter was recorded along many of the watercourses and along several of the waterbodies within the site. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the inclusion of a Species Protection Pan (SPP) to include pre-construction surveys undertaken within one month of the commencement of works, to inform the need for any mitigation measures to ensure significant effects on the species are avoided. Summary of Protected Species 15.23 Badger - No records found within the potential impact zone (30m). A sett was located 50m from the proposed access track across the Killean Burn. Water Vole, Page 56
Page 57
Red Squirrel, Pine Marten, and Reptiles - No evidence recorded. Suitable habitat is present 15.24 Fish - Species likely present are brown trout and European eel. Some suitable habitat present. Watercourses will be buffered by 50m apart from locations where access tracks unavoidably need to cross. The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the inclusion of the Species Protection Plan (SPP) and appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to implement the SPP to include provision of a Toolbox Talk to all construction staff and contractors and to conduct pre- construction surveys of protected species of within a month of works starting and implement appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. 15.25 Summary of Ornithology – 58 species recorded in the Breeding Bird Surveys with an additional 15 non-breeding bird species. 45 species recorded in the Wintering Bird Populations. Species recorded are a mix of raptors, wild fowl, passerines, and grassland birds. Black grouse lekking sites were recorded on site. Red throated divers recorded breeding within 2km of the site. No significant impact of residual impacts on any bird species. Proposal would not affect the favourable conservation status of any bird species of conservation importance. No adverse effect on the integrity of any SPA qualifying interests 15.26 The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the removal of the two northernmost wind turbines to avoid the main goose flight corridor as well as location of the wind turbines and associated infrastructure to avoid protected sites and species including the Kintyre Goose Roost SPA, golden eagles, and hen harriers. It is also noted that there will be a 500m buffer between wind turbines and used black grouse leks and no construction work will take place before 09:00 within 750m of any lek sites during April and May. 15.27 The Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the creation of 10ha low-density native woodland edges to improve connectivity and black grouse habitat as outlined in the BEMP. They also welcome the provision of three artificial nest rafts for red- throated divers and long-term monitoring to include breeding bird surveys (BBS), vantage point (VP) surveys, and winter geese surveys. 15.28 Recommendation – as with the habitat and peatland enhancement, the application needs to include a plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such a time that they are established and no longer vulnerable to over-browsing. 15.29 Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) - the Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the following objectives within the plan: habitat and peatland enhancement including black grouse, red-throated diver, greenland white-fronted goose, long term monitoring of planned objectives, reporting of monitoring results to relevant parties and implementation of a Biodiversity Enhancement Management Group. 15.30 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) - the Local Biodiversity Officer welcomes the inclusion of the plan to include implementation of an EcoW, provision of Toolbox talks to all construction staff and contractors, conduction of pre-construction works within one month prior to works starting, and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures where necessary. The Local Page 57
Page 58
Biodiversity Officer welcomes the appointment of an ECoW prior to construction and throughout works where necessary. 15.31 Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) – advised the ECU they are satisfied the proposal should not have any significant impact on migratory salmonid fish habitat within the site providing the construction phase is conducted in accordance with current environmental regulations. Migratory salmonid fish (sea trout) are present in the lower reaches of the Killean Burn, Tayinloan Burn, Clachaig Water and Carradale Water (which also has Atlantic salmon) which may be affected by any deterioration in water quality caused during construction. ADSFB urge that in the event the proposal receives consent that monitoring of Water quality, macroinvertebrates, and fish should be undertaken to Scottish Government guidelines. It is recommended that the matters raised by ADSFB in relation to the construction phase and monitoring are secured by condition. 15.32 Having due regard to the above, subject to the recommendations made by NatureScot, SEPA, RSPB Scotland, the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board and the Local Biodiversity Officer being secured by condition in the event that consent is granted it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2 Scottish Forestry have advised the ECU that compensatory planting should be secured by a condition. Furthermore, that the appropriate consenting route for the management felling required to accommodate construction of the development, including infrastructure and management felling, totalling 41.3ha would be the Section 36 consent. Restocking of management felling areas and compensatory planting relating to permanent woodland loss would also be via the Section 36 consent. 16.3 Having due regard to the above subject to the condition recommended by Scottish Forestry being attached in the event that the proposal receives consent it is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2 Page 58
Page 59
17. MINERALS 17.1 Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time-limited, the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development, and appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against NPF4 Policy 33 criterion e). 17.2 Borrow pits may be used to provide the stone for the construction of access tracks, compounds, and hardstands, subject to sufficient quality and quantity of stone being available at the six borrow pit search areas. These search areas are shown as the maximum potential area of borrow pit extraction, but it is not anticipated these areas would be fully exploited. Final borrow pit locations within the borrow pit search areas would be subject to detailed ground investigations to confirm suitability of material. A condition is recommended to secure details of the borrow pits and a borrow pit restoration plan. 17.3 Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pits are tied to the proposal and subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pits and a borrow pit restoration plan being attached to any consent it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term environmental management of the site. 18.2 The proposal is expected to operate for up to 50 years following which decommissioning of the wind turbines and other infrastructure would be undertaken as required. Any alternative to this action would be subject to a further consenting process. 18.3 In the event of decommissioning, or replacement of the wind turbines, it is anticipated that the likelihood of environmental effects is like, or less than, that expected during construction. Decommissioning would be undertaken in line with best practice processes and methods and will be managed through an agreed CEMP. Decommissioning will involve the following: dismantling and removal of wind turbines and electrical equipment; restoration of the wind turbine areas, hardstands, and access tracks; and dismantling and removal of the substation compound. The CEMP will be updated as required to ensure best practice is Page 59
Page 60
adopted during decommissioning. It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute if the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. 18.4 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached if the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 - The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 19.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 also requires cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been identified are covered in the preceding sections of this report. 20. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS. 20.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that, in considering the impacts of the proposal, significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all renewable developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions. 20.2 Renewable Electricity Generation - Both UK and Scottish Government energy policy recognises the need for substantial increases in renewable energy generation if the transition towards net zero is to be achieved. The turbines would have an anticipated capacity of approx. 6.6MW. The annual generation from the turbines is therefore estimated at approx. 227.8 Gigawatt hours (GWh) based on a site derived capacity factor of 43.77% 1. The turbines will therefore supply renewable electricity equivalent to the approximate annual domestic needs of up to 70,3162 average UK households. Each unit of renewable electricity transmitted will displace a unit of conventionally generated electricity, therefore displacing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It is estimated that the proposed wind turbines will displace approx. 96,5873 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, or 4,829,360 tonnes over the anticipated 50-year lifespan of the proposal. 20.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – The proposal would reduce greenhouse gas emissions through replacing fossil fuel generation. The length of time a wind turbine needs to be in operation before it has, by displacing fossil fuel energy generation, avoided as much carbon dioxide as was released in its lifecycle is known as the carbon payback period. A carbon balance assessment has been undertaken using the Scottish Government’s carbon calculator. The results reveal the net impact will be positive overall, as the calculations of total carbon dioxide emission savings and payback time indicate the overall payback period would be approx. 1.5 years, when compared to the fossil fuel mix of electricity generation. Over the expected 48.5 years the proposal is likely to be generating carbon-free Page 60
Page 61
electricity, this could result in around 4,829,360 tonnes of net carbon dioxide emission savings when replacing fossil fuel-mix electricity generation. Overall, the proposal would lead to substantial net carbon savings and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over its operational life. Peatland is an important carbon store, and the proposal has potential to impact peat, despite mitigations proposed to limit disturbance. A carbon balance assessment report has been produced and Scottish Government’s online carbon calculator tool completed to determine the carbon payback time for the proposal. The results from the carbon calculator reveal that the net impact of the proposal will be positive overall, as the calculations of total carbon dioxide emission savings and payback time for the proposal indicates the overall payback period would be approximately 1.5 years, when compared to the fossil fuel mix of electricity generation. This means that the proposal is expected to take between 0.6 and 1.9 years to repay the carbon exchange to the atmosphere (the CO2 debt) through construction of the wind turbines; the proposal would in effect be in a net gain situation following this time period and would contribute to national CO2 reduction targets. The proposal therefore illustrates a significantly positive net impact in terms of its contribution towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy production. 20.5 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2 in respect to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. 21. GRID CAPACITY & ENERGY STORAGE 21.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that grid capacity should not constrain renewable energy development. It is for developers to agree connections to the grid with the relevant network operator. Furthermore, that proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported, which include energy storage. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires the Council to have regard to the opportunities for energy storage. 21.2 Grid Capacity - Connection to Electricity Grid - The proposed point of connection into the electricity grid system is at the substation compound. The proposal would be connected at Carradale Substation, a substation located approx. 11.2km southeast of the site. The connection would be comprised of buried 132kV cables and/or Overhead lines (OHL). The exact arrangement of this grid connection is subject to detailed design by SSEN Transmission. Any final grid connection route and associated consents would be subject to a separate consenting process and EIA if required. 21.3 Energy storage – This project will not have a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). The reason there is no BESS proposed at Killean is simply down to the terms of the Applicant’s option agreement with the landowner. It was signed around the time of the original application, before BESS became more commonly included in wind applications, so they currently have rights for a wind farm only. Not to say that this could not be amended and incorporated in future. Page 61
Page 62
21.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABLDP2 in respect to Grid Capacity and Energy Storage. 22. PERPETUITY 22.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that consents for proposals may be time limited. Areas identified for wind farms are, however, expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. It is acknowledged that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. However, as the expected operational life of the proposal is 50 years from the date of commissioning, should consent be granted, Officers would expect it to be time limited to 50 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the EIAR. 23. CONCLUSION 23.1 This proposal is classed as “Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation” - a National Development, in terms of the Spatial Strategy given its capacity to generate and store more than 50MW. In principle, there is support for this scale of development given its importance in the delivery of Scotland’s Spatial Strategy. However, such projects are still required to be assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan, which consists of NPF4 and LDP 2. 23.2 The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle but require proposals to be assessed against the criterion detailed in this report. While the weight to be given to each of the considerations is a matter for the decision maker, NPF4 is clear that significant weight will require to be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. However, a balance still requires to be reached in terms of the impact of the development. 23.3 In relation to landscape and visual impacts NPF4 advises that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied such effects will be considered acceptable. However, NPF4 must be read as a whole, and detailed consideration given to linked policies. Policy 4 (Natural Places) – sets out that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Whilst it is considered that this proposal will have a significant landscape and visual impact, it is not considered that it warrants an objection subject to the conditions recommended by the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect. 23.4 The Scottish Government gives considerable commitment to renewable energy and encourages Planning Authorities to support the development of wind farms where they can operate successfully in appropriate locations. This is not however blanket support without qualification. In considering the appropriateness of the development, significant weight has been given to these matters. 23.5 In conclusion, it is recommended by Officers that the Council objects to this proposal until such time as National Air Traffic Services remove their objection. Thereafter, the Council would have no objection to this proposal subject to the recommended conditions being included in any consent granted by Scottish Ministers. Page 62
Page 63
24. RECOMMENDATION 24.1 That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) There is an unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS). Consequently, Argyll & Bute Council OBJECT on the grounds that the proposal will have an adverse Aviation Impact, contrary to the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 which requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 which requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed, and Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 which stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. Note: If NATS withdraw their objection and subject to any conditions they recommend being attached to any grant of consent Argyll & Bute Council would no longer object on these grounds. Should the objection remain unresolved, and the proposal progresses to Public Inquiry, Argyll & Bute Council would defer to NATS. (2) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to landscape and visual impact subject to conditions to secure the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect being attached to any grant of consent: • Aircraft Detection Lighting System • Substantial increases in broadleaved planting as part of the wind farm restocking plan including riparian planting across the wider Killean estate. • Redesign of the outer margins of productive woodland to remedy hard angular edges and improve the fit of plantations with landform. • Compensatory planting should be undertaken within the Killean Estate. Argyll & Bute Council and Scottish Forestry should be consulted on the location, extent, and composition. • Management of existing mature mixed woodlands in the vicinity of Killean House including new planting to retain and enhance screening of the proposed wind farm from the coast and protect the landscape setting provided to the Killean Estate buildings and St John’s Church. (3) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to archaeological impact, subject to conditions to secure appropriate archaeological mitigation being attached to any grant of consent following further consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. (4) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Biodiversity Impact, subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer being attached to any grant of consent. Page 63
Page 64
• An appropriate plan for mitigation against potential deer impact on newly planted trees until such time as they are established and no longer vulnerable to over- browsing. • While the impact to bats is unlikely to be significant, it would be advisable to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision as they are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. (5) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to noise impact, subject to a suitably worded conditions to limit the noise levels, tonality, and amplitude modulation to control noise levels from the proposal and provide appropriate noise mitigation as recommended and agreed by the Councils Noise Consultant. (6) Argyll & Bute has no objection in respect to flood risk subject to conditions to secure the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessor being attached to any grant of consent: • To ensure watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre- development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event; and, • Surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. (7) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to Access subject to the condition to secure the recommendations of the Access Officer being attached to any grant of consent: • Access Plan to be submitted and agreed in writing by the Council prior to the commencement of development. (8) Argyll & Bute Council has no objection in respect to provision of the turning area across from the site access subject to the following conditions being attached to any grant of consent. • Exact details and specifications of the design of the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. • Exact details and specification of the restoration plan for the turning area to be submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. These shall include details of timescales and landscaping. • A condition to limit the turning area to an appropriate temporary period to be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. (9) Argyll & Bute Council requests that all conditions recommended by other consultees are included in any Consent. Page 64
Page 65
""""" " " "" " " " " "" © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/01541/S36 O 1:35,000 0 325 650162.5 Meters Application Site Page 65
Page 66
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 67
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 67 Agenda Item 5
Page 68
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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
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 70
Page 71
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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
• 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 73
Page 74
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 74
Page 75
(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 75
Page 76
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 76
Page 77
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 77
Page 78
(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 78
Page 79
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 79
Page 80
(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 80
Page 81
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 81
Page 82
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 82
Page 83
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 83
Page 84
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 84
Page 85
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 85
Page 86
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 86
Page 87
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 87
Page 88
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 88
Page 89
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 89
Page 90
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 90
Page 91
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 91
Page 92
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 92
Page 93
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 93
Page 94
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. Page 94
Page 95
© Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00576/PP O 0 25 5012.5 Meters Application Site Page 95
Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 97
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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: 25/01248/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr Gaetano Grieve Proposal: Erection of 4 dwellinghouses, installation of sewage treatment plants and formation of 2 vehicular accesses Site Address: Land West of Komani Aros Mains, Aros, Isle of Mull 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 four dwellinghouses • Installation of private drainage systems • Formation of two vehicular accesses (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water supply (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Area Roads Authority Report dated 03.11.2025 advising of no objections to the application subject to conditions relating to the formation of the accesses at the junction with the public road; the clearance and maintenance of visibility splays; the provision of a system of surface water drainage; the provision of parking and turning areas; the culverting of the roadside ditches at the site accesses; the provision of bin storage areas; and the provision of proportionate improvements to the public approach road to include the provision of an additional passing place and the levelling of the road verges to create a level step off for pedestrians. Page 97 Agenda Item 6
Page 98
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Scottish Water Letter dated 06.08.2025 advising of no objection to the application and confirming that the proposed development is within the Tobermory Water Treatment Works catchment. Scottish Water further advised that there is no public waste water infrastructure within the vicinity of the proposed development and therefore private arrangements will be required. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation responses are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: 24/01849/PP Erection of 6 dwellinghouses, installation of sewage treatment plants and formation of 2 vehicular accesses Withdrawn on 15.07.2025 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 28.08.2025. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 27 objections, 1 representation and 2 expressions of support have been received to the application. OBJECTIONS Mr Hugh Andrew, Keepers Cottage, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (07.08.2025) David Hartley (07.08.2025) Dr Lesley Graham, Keepers Cottage, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (12.08.2025) Ms Celia Thomson, 19 Garden House Drive, Acomb, Hexham, NE46 4RZ (13.08.2025) Mrs Abigail Macleod, Riverside House, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (13.08.2025) Mr Alistair Cameron, Glenaros Lodge, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (13.08.2025) Mrs Fae Cameron, Glenaros Lodge, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (13.08.2025) Prof. Mauvis Gore, Komani, Aros Mains, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP – by email only (14.08.2025) Dr Rupert Ormond, Komani, Aros Mains, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP – by email only (14.08.2025) Mr James MacLennan, Seileasdair, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (15.08.2025) Mr Richard Kellett, Main Cottage, Castle Steadings, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (15.08.2025) Mrs Maggie Thomson, Aros Mains House, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (15.08.2025) Miss Evie Kellett, Main Cottage, Castle Steadings, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (15.08.2025) Page 98
Page 99
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Christina Thomson Jones, Grianan, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP – by email only (13.08.2025) Mr Roderick Thomson, 11 Queens Walk, London, W5 1TP (17.08.2025) Mrs Alison Spence, Bridges Cottage, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (17.08.2025) Mrs Kirsten Bennett, Main Cottage, Castle Steadings, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (17.08.2025) Ms Leonora Thomson, 98 Taff Embankment, Cardiff, CF11 7BH (18.08.2025) Mr Richard Pells, 13 Valley View, Liskeard, PL14 4QH (18.08.2025) Ms Natasha Smailes, West Highland Cottage, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (18.08.2025) Mrs Caitlin MacLennan, Seileasdair, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (18.08.2025) Mr Stuart Davidson, Riverside Cottage, Aros Bridge, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (18.08.2025) Mr Duncan Spence, Bridges Cottage, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (18.08.2025) Mrs Linda Devlin, 2 Aros Mains, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP – by email only (19.08.2025) Harriet Smailes, West Highland Cottage, Aros Mains, PA72 6JP – by email only (17.08.2025) Nick Holmes, 2 Aros Mains, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (19.08.2025) Ms Alison Holt, Heriot Cottage, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JP (20.08.2025) REPRESENTATIONS Oban & District Access Panel – by email only (18.08.2025) SUPPORT Mr Grant Holland, Toomeran Lodge, Lochbuie, Isle of Mull, PA62 6AA (25.08.2025) Ms Juliet Knight, 25/3 Mentone Terrace, Edinburgh, EH9 2DF (27.08.2025) 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: OBJECTION Water supply and drainage • The ground to which this application relates sits on a number of private water supplies. Existing private water supplies would be compromised. The existing pipes are buried shallow and require to be accessed to resolve blockages. If the pipes are disturbed during construction, water supplies would be cut off. • The development references soakaways with further potential for permanent impact on water supply and quality. • Local residents were requested to cut mains usage due to water shortages. Has the applicant got any assurance that they would be accepted on to mains water supply. • The proposed development is not near a public sewer and will therefore require sewage treatment, from which the outflow will discharge into soakaways. Properties located below the proposed development are Page 99
Page 100
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 supplied by a spring located in proximity to the proposed development. The proposal would breach SEPA’s guidance with regards to proximity to existing springs supplying domestic water and to an existing watercourse. There is concern that the quality of existing water supplies would be biologically compromised, contrary to LDP2 Policy 60. • There is no guarantee that these properties can be attached to mains water. If Scottish Water decline to supply the development, water will have to be provided by a private supply. This would interfere with existing supplies. • The increased water and sewage runoff could harm the health and affect wildlife at the river and the estuary. The effect on the estuary and its significant and unique estuarine flora and fauna is unknown and potentially disastrous. Officer Comment: The Council’s Building Standards Service will apply sufficient control over the treatment plant arrangements at Building Warrant stage. The proposed drainage system would be regulated under the building standards to ensure that it is capable of being provided to a safe, effective and appropriate technical standard. Any discharge to the water environment would be regulated by SEPA under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended). It is the responsibility of the installer and owner to ensure that the drainage system is installed and maintained correctly. Pollution enforcement is the responsibility of SEPA and as the proposed development is not located within a Waste Water Drainage Consultation Area there is no reason to assume that a safe and effective private wastewater system cannot be utilised. The rights of third parties to access the application site for purposes relating to the existing private water supplies is a Civil Matter to be resolved between the affected parties. The application indicates a connection to the public water supply. Scottish Water have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the application, confirming that the proposed development is within the Tobermory Water Treatment Works catchment. In the event that a public water supply connection cannot be obtained an alternative private water supply would constitute a material amendment requiring the submission of a further planning application. Visual impact • The building of tall structures on a rising bank at the top of another steep bank is going to be unavoidably extremely prominent. Much is made of the screening effect of the trees; this is on separate private ground and for half the year it is bare and provides minimal screening. The benefit of the screening cannot be relied upon for considering visual impact in the future. The visual impact will be severe in winter months when the trees are without leaves. • The road passage on the far side of the Aros Water and on to Tobermory is one of the most used roads on the west coast of Scotland. The view across the water to Aros Castle is one of the most iconic on the west coast. It is a historic landscape, and visitors will now see a ribbon development along the skyline. The development represents a very substantial intrusion into one of the more famous and photographed views of the Hebrides. Plot 4 would be Page 100
Page 101
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 particularly visible in what is an iconic view. The deterioration of the area would impact upon the local tourist sector. The proposed development would stand out against the skyline and would detract from the historically important setting. • Given the small size of Aros Mains, the development would represent a significant expansion of the settlement outside of the settlement boundary. A smaller development, at the same level, consistent with the existing houses, would be less visually obtrusive and more in keeping with the area. • LDP2 notes that most development should be within the settlements and not within the countryside. The proposal does not represent infill, rounding off or redevelopment. The development would be a new estate rather than being in keeping with the existing area. • There is concern that the granting of the application would bring similar plans that would provide the area with a ‘strip mall’ appearance. The proposed development would extend into the open countryside. • LDP2 encourages appropriate development along the Dalmally-Oban- Craignure-Tobermory corridor. However the applicant is interpreting this policy incorrectly for development at any location along this route. This would result in a strip of development along the whole of the north coast of Mull between Craignure and Tobermory, adversely impacting upon the coastal landscape of the area. • The size and location of the proposed development would be contrary to LDP2 Policy 71. • The previously withdrawn application proposed to utilise more discreet facing materials. • The proposed development would lead to overdevelopment. The development would double the number of properties served by the access and would bring a suburban style ribbon development. The development would be out of scale and would alter the character of the area. Four large, elevated houses would dominate the view. The development of four properties with two access points is unreasonable when considered in the context of the location and density of the existing dwellings. • There are no plans for landscaping. Any planting would need to be maintained until it was able to manage on its own. The impact on local character and landscape could be further reduced if there were areas of planting of native shrubs and trees. • The visualisations submitted with the application are being used to mislead and misrepresent the impact of the proposed development. Officer Comment: The application site is not covered by any specific environmental or landscape designations. Notwithstanding this, the application has been submitted with a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment to assist in the assessment of the likely significance of the effects of change resulting from the proposed development upon the landscape, views and visual amenity. Page 101
Page 102
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The proposed development would be set towards the south of the site and would sit no higher in the landscape than the adjacent properties to the east. There are a number of substantial properties in proximity to the site, and the proposed development would form a well-contained, distinct grouping, respecting the wider plot densities. The ground to the north of the site continues to rise, which would provide an appropriate backdrop to the proposed development. Whilst the established trees are outwith the application site, they would provide a degree of screening; it is acknowledged that the trees may be felled, however the proposed development would remain backdropped and viewed in the context of existing, established clusters of development. The settlement pattern of the wider area is characterised by clusters of development, and the proposed development would contribute to this. The proposed development has been reduced in scale since the submission of the initial planning application relating to the site, which was withdrawn (our reference 24/01849/PP). This current application seeks to address the concerns raised following the submission of the previous application, including the reduction of the number of dwellinghouses from six to four, and amendments to the siting to ensure that the proposal would not lead to a two-tiered development pattern. The proposed facing and roofing materials are considered appropriate to the context of the site and would be similar in appearance to the facing and roofing materials of the existing dwellings to the east. A scheme for boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping is to be secured via planning condition, to include the submission of details any proposed walls, fences and gates; surface treatment; and hard and soft landscaping works. Housing need • There is no evidence that the intention of the applicant is to develop affordable housing. The specifications and size of the dwellings make it clear that this is a development to be sold for high prices to maximise profit. What guarantees will be given to ensure that the development is affordable, built to the standards stated, and that it is not to maximise land value. • The proposal is for luxury houses that will, without regulation, most likely be either second homes or holiday lets. Approval should be subject to a Section 75 Agreement requiring local occupancy by persons with an agreed local connection, affordability safeguards, prohibition of short-term letting or second home use without further consent, and delivery in accordance with the submitted high quality design; this should be monitored and enforced. Without such safeguards, the proposal risks undermining the housing strategy of the island by adding to the stock of premium or recreational housing rather than meeting identified community need. • The existing housing shortage is not for large houses but for affordable accommodation and cheaper starter homes. The proposed houses are unlikely to be affordable to those on low or moderate incomes. Officer Comment: The proposal the subject of this planning application seeks consent for the erection of four dwellinghouse. It is important to ensure that new housing developments meet the varied needs of all sectors of communities; the number of dwellinghouses proposed would be of a small scale and the proposal Page 102
Page 103
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 does not reach the threshold for the number of units required to contribute a proportion of affordable housing. Whilst it is acknowledged that the future occupancy or tenure of the dwellinghouses is unknown, the Council currently has no planning policies that could control this and, in that regard, this is not considered a planning issue of any overriding material significance. Neighbour notification • For an area like Argyll and Bute, the adoption of a 20-metre planning impact radius means that those affected by a planning application are unlikely to be made aware of a neighbouring proposed development. • The application did not appear to have been published anywhere. This is unacceptable. Officer Comment: The Council is required to notify those with an interest in “neighbouring land” of a planning application - this constitutes land within 20 metres of the boundary of the land for which the development is proposed. Where such neighbouring land consists of open fields, countryside or woodland with no obvious premises on it, then an advert would be necessary; in this instance, the application is advertised in the Oban Times under Regulation 20 procedures. Access • The road is not suitable for construction traffic or the increase in usage which the proposed development would lead to on top of the existing housing. One of the occupants along the road works in essential services and the road is a vital link for medical services on the island. The increased traffic from construction and occupation would delay emergency response times, risking lives. The proposal does not show how safe access will be maintained nor how increased traffic volumes can be safely managed. • The road is a narrow, single track with few passing places and has no pavement. Vehicles have to reverse around corners to get to the nearest passing places, which are not long enough or wide enough. The road is regularly used by walkers and visitors to the historic Aros Castle. The development would considerably increase traffic and the tight turn offs to the development could be hazardous. • The proposed exit plans for Plot 3 and Plot 4 suggest that the land is owned outright by the applicant; this is incorrect and misleading. • The use of the access road would lead to an increase in noise and exhaust pollution. • Four properties are likely to generate around eight vehicles for the residents, in addition to visitor vehicles and leisure vehicles. The information submitted with the application does not detail the containment of run-off from the access and parking areas. Officer Comment: The Council’s Roads Authority have been consulted on the application and advised of no objections subject to conditions. Such conditions include off site highway improvements to address the increase in vehicular traffic on the public approach road that would result from the proposed development. An Page 103
Page 104
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 appropriate condition will secure the provision of an additional passing place and levelling off the roadside verges between the proposed site accesses and junction of the UC79 with the A848 to create a level step off for pedestrians. Suitability and use of the site • The applicant states that the site is an agricultural field which is used for grazing cattle and sheep; it has been used for grazing in recent times. One of the current tenant farmers will be evicted. • The proposed development would aggravate the flooding issue affecting the properties along the shore below Aros Mains. House plots are not permeable and the development would occupy a significant area of land. Local flooding will become more severe given the increasing rainfall expected with climate change. Runoff from new hard surfaces would worsen the problem of flooding on the stretch of road near Aros Mains, increasing ice hazards in winter weather. • If soakaways and drains are unmaintained in the long term, there would be an increased risk of flooding to the existing properties below the proposed development. Officer Comment: The ceasing of the agricultural use of the land does not form a material planning consideration. In terms of the land capability for agriculture, the application site falls within Class 5.1 where the land is capable for use as improved grassland. The proposed development would be of a small scale and would not impact upon prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use. The site for the proposed development is located outwith all flood extents as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. A suitable condition will secure the provision of sustainable urban drainage systems to ensure that the proposed development would effectively manage rain and surface water. Systems of surface water drainage are required to prevent water passing onto the public road, and the provision of such systems will be secured via planning condition. REPRESENTATION • The Panel advise that the site is an eminently suitable location for disabled people who need ready access to medical and other essential services and facilities. The Panel suggest that an overlay internal layout floorplan based on Inclusive Design principles for one of the houses is provided. This would enable disabled people to ascertain the prospects of adapting the layout on disabled-friendly principles. Officer Comment: The agent has since provided a plan to show how the internal layout of one of the proposed house types could be varied to provide accessibility. SUPPORT • The potential of new houses in the Aros area is essential to provide adequate properties for permanent residents for either current or future families on Mull. As evidenced by other local land sales close by in Salen, uptake is quick and those plots already host young families and frontline workers. This Page 104
Page 105
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 planning type is essential for the regeneration and survivability of the island. The site is currently used as a grazing field for minimal livestock; the potential of four new homes far outweighs the impact on agricultural usage. • It is imperative that land is freed up to build new homes on the island for communities to thrive and to allow workers to move their families and to move up the housing ladder. There is a critical shortage of housing which makes it difficult for businesses to attract and retain staff or to fill essential roles. Many houses are holiday properties serving the tourist industry and land available for building is extremely limited. There are people at all stages of the housing ladder who either already live on Mull or need to move there for work. • Aros is well served by public transport, with access to schools, shops and other amenities. The area is accessed via a good road with low traffic levels and no existing residential property looks onto the proposed development. The proposed development is sensitively designed and, as there are already new houses along the road, they will not look out of keeping. Officer Comment: The expressions of support are noted by the Planning Authority. (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 A Design & Access Statement has been submitted with the application. (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No The relevant Sustainability Checklists have been submitted and examined. It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the applicant has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of Page 105
Page 106
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 the proposed development, 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 eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement 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 (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place Page 106
Page 107
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith 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 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 Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Sustainable Communities 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 Homes for People Policy 67 – Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs Including Affordable Housing High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 83 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft Land (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) • ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) Page 107
Page 108
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN21 VII and LVIA Light Technical Note (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement (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 Whilst there has been considerable objection raised, primarily from residents in the immediate locality of the development, it is noted that the representations relate largely to existing water supplies, the suitability of the access to serve the proposed development, and the visual impact resulting from the proposed development. The application site is not covered by any specific environmental or landscape designations and the Officer’s recommendation is aligned with the consultation responses received from both the Council’s Roads Authority and Scottish Water and as such it is not considered that a pre- determination hearing would add significant value to the decision making process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • N/A (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 5.1 - Land capable of use as improved grassland. Few problems with pasture establishment and maintenance and potential high yields. 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 Page 108
Page 109
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (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 ☐Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The proposal the subject of this planning application is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of four dwellinghouses, the installation of private drainage systems and the formation of two vehicular accesses. With regard to the planning history for the site, a previous application was submitted for the development of the site with six dwellinghouses and associated works (our reference 24/01849/PP); this application was subsequently withdrawn following concerns raised by the Planning Authority with regard to the density and siting of the proposed development. The current application proposes an amended scheme, seeking to address the previous concerns. In terms of the adopted LDP2 the site is defined as ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’ within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area' where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. Policy 02 further states that certain development will be supported, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, with these comprising, infill, redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or previously developed sites. In Countryside Areas, where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place, Policy 02 details that development proposals will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. The application site comprises an area of sloping managed grassland to the north of the UC79 public road, sited approximately 400 metres to the east of the A848 public road. The site as existing features a single agricultural building within the southeast corner, accessed via an existing track. A dense mature tree belt is situated to the Page 109
Page 110
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 south of the UC79 public road, which follows the line of the road. Further to the south, an additional access closely follows the edge of the bay to provide access to dwellings at the mouth of the River Aros. There are a number of existing residential properties in proximity to the application site, with three houses immediately to the east and an additional cluster of dwellings at the end of the UC79 public road. The proposed dwellings would be accessed by two new private accesses which would extend from the UC79 public road; Plot 1 and Plot 2 would share a new access and parking area set a short distance immediately to the north of the public road, and Plot 3 and 4 would be accessed via a shared hard landscaped area that would be of sufficient size to allow turning for larger delivery, maintenance and emergency vehicles. Water supply would be via connection to the public water supply and foul drainage would be via private domestic sewage treatment plants and associated soakaways due to the lack of public infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. All access, parking and infrastructure matters are considered acceptable and are discussed in detail in the main assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. The proposal has elicited 27 objections, 1 representation and 2 expressions of support. The key factor in the assessment of this application is whether or not the erection of four dwellinghouses and associated development are of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for their countryside location and whether the development is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy. It is the opinion of Planning Officers that the siting, scale and design of the proposed dwellinghouses and the associated development would pay appropriate regard to the characteristics of the area within which it proposed to ensure no significant adverse impact arises and the proposal is considered to accord with the provisions of the current Development Plan and with national planning policy. Taking account of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions appended to this report. A full report is provided within Appendix A. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (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, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A Page 110
Page 111
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 04.11.2025 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 04.11.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 111
Page 112
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/01248/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 22.07.2025, 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 677_PL_001 C 28.07.2025 Site Plan – Existing 677_PL_002 28.07.2025 Site Sections – Existing 677_PL_003 A 28.07.2025 Site Plan – Ground Floor 677_PL_010 C 28.07.2025 Site Plan – First Floor 677_PL_011 D 28.07.2025 Site Plan – Roof 677_PL_012 D 28.07.2025 Site Plan – Aerial photomontage 677_PL_013 B 28.07.2025 Site Sections – Proposed 677_PL_020 A 28.07.2025 House Type A1 677_PL_101 C 28.07.2025 House Type A2 677_PL_102 D 28.07.2025 House Type B1 677_PL_103 B 28.07.2025 House Type B variant plans – accessibility study 677_PL_104 23.10.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Timescale to be Agreed for Completion No development shall commence until 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. 3. Sustainable Drainage System Page 112
Page 113
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753 and Sewers for Scotland 4th Edition. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: • Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk . 4. Junctions with Public Road Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed accesses shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/004b and visibility splays of 25 metres to point X by 2.4 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site 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 visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to Applicant: • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. • The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. • Bin storage areas shall be located to the rear of the bay element of the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/004b. 5. Parking and Turning – Further Details Required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until full details of the layout and surfacing of parking and turning areas to accommodate two vehicles per dwelling for House Types ‘A1’ and ‘A2’ and three vehicles for House Type ‘B’ within the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Page 113
Page 114
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Reason: In the interest of road safety. 6. Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i) Location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Any proposed re-contouring of the site by means of existing and proposed ground levels; iv) Proposed hard and soft landscape works; v) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development; and vi) A management plan for the removal of invasive non-native species, to include a programme of monitoring and maintenance. The development shall not be occupied until such time as the physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc), the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. 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. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 7. Electric Vehicle Charging – Residential with off street parking Prior to the commencement of the development (or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), a scheme detailing the provision of four minimum 7kw electric vehicle charging points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Where charging cannot be provided then the appropriate ducting to future proof the property must be installed. Page 114
Page 115
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The approved charging point, or where relevant, the approved cable ducting shall be installed in full prior to the first occupation of the development, and thereafter retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority Reason: To comply with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging. 8. Offsite Highway Improvements Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1 no development shall commence until full details of offsite highway improvements have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers. Such details shall incorporate: i) The provision of an additional passing place, to be installed approximately 50 to 70 metres from the junction of the UC79 with the A848; ii) The road verges to be levelled off between the site accesses and the junction of the UC79 with the A848, to create a level step off for pedestrians; and iii) The culverting of roadside ditches at the site accesses. Prior to the dwellinghouses hereby granted being first occupied, the approved scheme of works shall be completed. Reason: In the interest of road safety to provide a standard of access commensurate with the scale of the development. Page 115
Page 116
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/01248/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of four dwellinghouses, the installation of private drainage systems and the formation of two vehicular accesses. 2. Settlement Strategy 2.1. In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDP2, the site is defined as ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’ within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area' where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. In order to address the determining issues, the key considerations in this application are: 2.1.1. Compliance with the Development Plan and other relevant planning policy 2.1.2. Any other material considerations. 3. Proposal 3.1. The site is a south facing slope with a level of 42mAOD at the highest point dropping to approximately 17mAOD at the southern boundary. The site as existing features an agricultural building and an associated track which crosses the site from east to west. With regard to the planning history for the site, a previous application was submitted for the development of the site with six dwellinghouses and associated works (our reference 24/01849/PP); this application was subsequently withdrawn following concerns raised by the Planning Authority with regard to the density and siting of the proposed development. The current application proposes to address the previous concerns, with a reduction to four dwellinghouses sited towards the southern boundary of the site with a variation in set back and orientation so as to avoid the previously proposed two-tiered development pattern. The layout of the proposed development would comprise four plots in a roughly linear formation, with two new accesses proposed to each serve two dwellings. The dwellings would be arranged to allow all the principal living spaces to gain views to the south, and the dwellings would be located within their plots to maximise south and west facing gardens. Plot 1, being the westernmost plot, would facilitate a dwelling of one and a three-quarter storey in design. The dwelling would have a ‘T’ shaped form, facilitating four bedrooms. The main section of the dwelling would comprise a narrow linear form with a dual-pitched roof and gable ends. The adjoining single storey elements would be flat-roofed. Plot 2 would be located immediately to the east of Plot 1 and would share an access with Plot 1. Plot 4 would be the easternmost plot. These plots would facilitate a dwelling of one and three-quarter storey in design. The dwellings would have a simple, narrow linear form, Page 116
Page 117
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 facilitating three bedrooms. The dwellings would have a dual-pitched roof and gable ends and would feature a small flat-roofed projection which would facilitate a porch. Plot 2, located centrally between Plots 2 and 4 and sharing an access with Plot 4, would facilitate a dwelling of one and three-quarter storey in design. The dwelling would have a simple, narrow linear form, facilitating three bedrooms. The dwelling would have a dual- pitched roof and gable ends and would feature a small flat-roofed projection which would facilitate a porch. The proposed dwellings would comprise local vernacular forms with appropriately proportioned massing and simply composed elevations. The proposed facing materials would be traditional white render, with vertical timber cladding to the flat-roofed entrances and to the single storey elements of the proposed dwelling at Plot 1. Vertical untreated timber cladding would also be used around the main windows and doors, which would weather to a silver colour over time. The roofs would be constructed using slate tiles. 4. Compliance with National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. 4.1. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. 4.2. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. 4.3. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity Page 117
Page 118
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. In the case of the development proposed by this application, it is considered that there are no issues of compliance with Policy 3. The application proposes to develop an area of managed grassland and no material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority and whilst no specific proposals for biodiversity improvements have been submitted, it is considered that adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection can be delivered by planning condition. With a condition to secure adequate and proportionate biodiversity enhancement and protection measures within the development, the proposal aligns with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The development proposed by the current planning application is considered appropriate in terms of its type, location and scale such that it has no unacceptable impact on the natural environment. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area or within an area identified as wild land. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 4 and does not conflict with any policies set out in LDP2. 4.5. NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 5 seeks to seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, to restore peatlands and to minimise disturbance to soils from development. The development the subject of this planning application seeks to develop an area of managed grassland. The wider site within the applicant’s ownership has an area of approximately 2.2 hectares; it is proposed to develop the southern area of the site, covering an area of 0.7 hectares. The site is not within an identified area of peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat. Whilst the proposed development would result in the use of a small area of managed grassland, it would not weaken the viability of an agricultural unit, result in the fragmentation of field systems and the integrity of a unit, nor would the proposal result in the loss of access to field systems. The development proposed is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 5 and Policies 79 and 83 of LDP2. 4.6. NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Page 118
Page 119
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The site is considered to be on a greenfield site by virtue of its designation as Countryside Area in the adopted LDP2. In this regard Part (b) of Policy 9 states that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP. However, LDP2 Policy 02, Outwith Settlement Areas, seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in areas identified as Countryside Area, with Part A of Policy 02 giving a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies contained within LDP2. LDP2 Policy 02 requires development proposals to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity. For any development where there is preliminary evidence that there may be such adverse effects (and where a formal environmental impact assessment is not required), a landscape and visual impact assessment, natural heritage assessment, or built and/or cultural heritage assessment may be required. Whilst the application site is not covered by any specific environmental or landscape designations, the application has been submitted with a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The Assessment takes into account the site’s elevated position, the proximity to the defined settlements, and the existing landscape character. The analysis of the potential effects of the proposed development upon the landscape setting and the visual amenity of the area are detailed below. The site is within a rural landscape, characterised by a south facing hillside with a band of mature woodland screening beyond the southern boundary. To the east, the proposed development is bounded by the settlement of Aros Mains and to the west, the settlement of Aros Bridge. These two settlement areas are separated by intervening ground which includes the site the subject of this application. The site is located in close proximity to the remains of Aros Castle, at a distance of approximately 350 metres, a significant historical landmark in the region. The presence of the castle remains contributes to the cultural and historical character of the surrounding landscape, with the A848 providing views of the castle over the estuary of the River Aros on the approach to Aros Bridge. The remains of Aros Castle are prominent within the landscape. The sight lines between the castle and the application site are screened through typography and woodland. The proposed dwellings would be clustered in a roughly linear formation, with variations in orientation and set back, in the southernmost part of the site where existing mature woodland beyond the site boundary would provide immediate visual screening. This siting minimises the visual impact from key viewpoints such as the approach along the A848 or the nearby settlements of Aros Bridge and Aros Mains. The site is not visible from Aros Castle. The Assessment states that during the months when the trees are in full leaf, the site would be largely if not completely concealed from the described viewpoints. Given the proximity of the distinct settlements of Aros Mains to the east and Aros Bridge to the west, there is a requirement to respect the gap between the settlements so as to avoid the risk of visual coalescence. Maintaining the separation would preserve the distinct identities of both settlements and the character of the surrounding landscape. The contextually appropriate material choices would further minimise the prominence of the proposed development, and maintaining open spaces between the site and the adjacent Page 119
Page 120
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 settlements would preserve the areas distinct character and avoid visual coalescence. The siting of the proposed development adjacent to the public road within the south of the site would assist in concealing the proposal from prominent views behind the existing mature woodland; this natural screening would assist in integrating the dwellings into the landscape and thereby reduce their visual significance. The detailed information submitted with the Assessment advises that the proposed development would avoid prominent ridgelines and respect existing vegetation and key view corridors, particularly from the A848 and across the Sound of Mull. The Assessment further advises that the proposed development would adopt simple forms and massing to reduce their visual impact within open views. A muted and natural material palette referencing traditional island structures, including timber cladding and slate roofs would by sympathetic to the surrounding built and natural context. The Assessment demonstrates that the application site has the capacity to facilitate the proposed development without any adverse landscape and visual effects. The application seeks planning permission for the erection of four dwellinghouses and associated development. The site for the proposed development is located immediately adjacent to an existing public road in proximity to the main A848 road which links the area to larger defined settlements. The scale and design of the proposed dwellinghouses, and the plot density, would respect the surrounding built environment. The site is not subject to any nature conservation or landscape designations. In this instance, therefore, the site is considered to represent an appropriate opportunity for development with a suitably sited and designed development within the Countryside Area which has been specifically designed with due regard to the context of the site in terms of its character and appearance and in this regard would be consistent with NPF4 Policy 9 which does not conflict with the spatial and settlement strategy set out in LDP2 Policy 02. 4.7. NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 11 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of renewable energy development onshore and offshore. This includes energy generation, storage, new and replacement transmission and distribution infrastructure and emerging low-carbon and zero emissions technologies. NPF4 Policy 11(a) states that development proposals for all forms of renewable, low- carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported. The proposed development, through the provision of solar panels upon the roofslopes of the dwellinghouses and the provision of aur source heat pumps, would contribute to the expansion of low-carbon and zero emission technologies and is thereby supported by NPF4 Policy 11 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 09, Sustainable Design, which seeks proposed developments to consider renewable sources of energy. 4.8. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 12 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. The development the subject of this planning application seeks to secure permission for four dwellinghouses. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it will benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. In this regard, the proposed development is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 and does not conflict with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 63, Waste Related Page 120
Page 121
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Development and Waste Management which seek to ensure that effective provision for waste/recycling is provided within developments. 4.9. NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The application is seeking to secure permission for four dwellinghouses, which is not considered to be a a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. Part (b) of Policy 13 requires consideration of the sustainable travel hierarchies including provision for vehicles and cycle charging points. The provision of electric vehicle charging points will be secured via condition. The proposed dwellings would be accessed by two new private accesses which would extend from the UC79 public road; Plot 1 and Plot 2 would share a new access and parking area set a short distance immediately to the north of the public road, and Plot 3 and Plot 4 would be accessed via a shared hard landscaped area that would be of sufficient size to allow turning for larger delivery, maintenance and emergency vehicles. LDP2 Policy 41, Off Site Highway Improvements, states that, in the judgement of the Planning Authority where development proposals will significantly increase vehicular or pedestrian traffic on substandard private or public approach roads, then developments will be required to contribute proportionately to improvements to an agreed section of the public or private road network. The Area Roads Authority have been consulted on the application and advised of no objections subject to conditions relating to the formation of the accesses at the junction with the public road; the clearance and maintenance of visibility splays; the provision of a system of surface water drainage; the provision of parking and turning areas; the culverting of the roadside ditches at the site accesses; the provision of bin storage areas; and the provision of proportionate improvements to the public approach road to include the provision of an additional passing place and the levelling of the road verges to create a level step off for pedestrians. Subject to the relevant conditions, the proposed development is consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 35, 36, 39, 40 and 41 which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with the scale of the development proposed. 4.10. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. NPF4 Policy 14(a) details that development proposals should be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations, regardless of scale with Part (b) affording support to developments where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable and Adaptable. Page 121
Page 122
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Part (c) details that development proposal which are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area, or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. NPF4 Policy 14(a) requires development proposals to be designed to improve the quality of an area, whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale. In this instance, the proposed development would be sited adjacent to the public road, in proximity to existing residential properties, screened by the adjacent established tree cover. Whilst there would be views of the proposed development, these would be in the context of the wider surroundings which include existing residential properties, and the views would be against the backdrop of rising land to the rear of the application site. The wider surrounding settlement patterns are formed of sporadic clusters of developments which generally share an access track from the main road, are often screened from views by established vegetation, and are often sited parallel to the access road. The development proposed by this application would be accessed off the main road and would form a well contained small cluster of development. The orientations of each of the proposed dwellings would be varied so as to suit the site topography and climatic conditions of each plot and to provide variation. The siting of the proposed development in relation to the existing properties to the east of the site would be such that separation distances and the intervening topography would mean that there would be no adverse impacts upon neighbour amenity with regard to overlooking, visual intrusion or shading. Neighbour amenity would therefore be suitably retained. The proposed development is considered to be designed to an appropriate standard to ensure compliance with the six qualities of successful places set out in NPF4 Policy 14 as follows. Healthy: being situated within a quiet rural setting but within proximity to an existing community; Pleasant: being attractively designed and finished dwellinghouses that would contribute to the character of the area; Connected: situated adjacent to the public road which would connect the development with the settlements of Tobermory, Salen and Craignure, all of which provide a number of services and facilities; Distinctive: the design of the dwellings would be of a distinct, high quality design which would respond to the setting whilst respecting the surrounding natural landscape; Sustainable: the dwellings would utilise appropriately proportioned and designed fenestration which would maximise potential for natural light; Adaptable: the development would be of a high quality design that would be capable of adaption for accessibility and for alternative future uses. The development the subject of this planning application is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and does not conflict with the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: all policies which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape making use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site, and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. 4.11. NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 15 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the Place Principle and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. Page 122
Page 123
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 NPF4 Policy 15(a) seeks development proposals to contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to a number of facilities. The LDP2 settlement strategy seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found and thereby making best use of these resources is a sustainable approach to development. In terms of our adopted settlement strategy, the site of the proposed dwellinghouses is in an area identified as being Outwith Settlement Areas where LDP2 Policy 02 seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in areas identified as Countryside Area, within which the site is situated, with Part A of Policy 02 giving a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies. In this instance, it is considered that the small scale of the proposed development, and its rural location, would reasonably comply with Policy 15 of NPF4 given the existing dispersed geographical scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and given its compliance with the existing settlement pattern and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 02. 4.12. NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 16 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs. Policy 16(c) supports development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, including ‘self-provided homes’ of which the proposed development represents. With regards to Part (f) of Policy 16(i) an agreed timescale for build-out will be covered through the use of a planning condition; 16(ii), whilst the development proposed by this planning application is not on land actively allocated for housing in the LDP2, it would wholly accord with the adopted settlement strategy and would accord with the principles of ‘local living’ and ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’; 16(iii) the proposal is consistent with NPF4 Policy 17, Rural Homes, being a suitable site which is in keeping with the landscape character of the area. The proposed development is deemed to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 16 and there is no conflict with LDP 2 Policy 02, Outwith Settlement due to the proposed development being of an appropriate scale, design and use for its countryside location. 4.13. NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes Page 123
Page 124
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 NPF4 Policy 17 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Policy 17(a) supports development proposals for new homes in rural areas where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. It has been demonstrated at NPF4 Policy 14 above that the proposed dwellinghouses would be of a suitable scale and design for their countryside location. Policy 17(b) requires proposals for new homes in rural areas to consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs. It has already been seen at NPF4 Policy 15 above that the proposed development is consistent with our adopted settlement strategy policies and that it would have no material harmful access or environmental impact. The proposed development seeks the introduction of four new dwellinghouses and associated works which would accord with the Council’s key planning policies aims of supporting and sustaining fragile rural communities by contributing to actions to reverse our falling rural populations and supporting the local economy. Policy 17(c) offers support to new homes in remote rural areas where such proposals (i) support and sustain existing fragile communities; (ii) support identified local housing outcomes; and (iii) are suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact. The development proposed accords with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 17 and does not conflict with LDP2 Policy 09, Sustainable Development, Policy 10, Design all Development, and Policy 67, Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs. 4.14. NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First 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. The application indicates water supply via connection to the public network with each proposed dwellinghouse having a separate domestic sewage treatment plant, in the form of a Klargester BioDisc with associated soakaways, due to the lack of public drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. The Council’s Building Standards Service will apply suitable control over the detailed arrangements of the proposed private drainage systems at Building Warrant stage. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 18 and is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 04, Sustainable Development and Policy 60, Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems, which seek to ensure that suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments and give support to private drainage arrangements where connection to the public system is not available. 4.15. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. The development the subject of this planning application proposes a connection to the public water supply. Scottish Water have been consulted on the application and raised no objection to the application, confirming that the proposed development is within the Tobermory Water Treatment Works catchment. Page 124
Page 125
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The management of rain and surface water at the site would be managed through the provision of a sustainable urban drainage system, which can be adequately secured through the use of a planning condition. Subject to such a condition, the proposal aligns with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 61, Sustainable Drainage Systems. 5. Public Representation 5.1. At the time of writing, representations had been received from 30 respondents in relation to this planning application. 27 respondents raise objection and two provide support, with one representation. It is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling. 6. Conclusion 6.1. The key factor in the assessment of this application is whether or not the erection of four dwellinghouses and the associated development is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location and whether the development is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy. No objections have been received from consultees with regards to the infrastructure, servicing or access required to serve the proposed development. The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy set out above and is deemed to be in compliance with their requirements and in accordance with the recently declared ‘housing emergency’. The issues raised by third parties are not considered to amount to material planning considerations that have not been addressed through the processing of the planning application. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Page 125
Page 126
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 127
Track Riverside Keepers Cottage Shingle Komani Grianan Seileasdair Mean High Water Marsh Track Riverside Shingle Shingle Shingle Mean High Water Springs TCB LB MHWS Cottage House Springs © Crown Copyright and database right 2025 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/01248/PP O 0 40 8020 Meters Application Site Page 127
Page 128
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 129
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 18th NOVEMBER 2025 TARBERT CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Member approval to consult on the draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. 1.2 Conservation areas are designated under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. Local planning authorities should designate and review existing and potential conservation areas, and these should be supported by Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans. Further to a recent review of Tarbert Conservation Area as part of work to support funding applications for a proposed Tarbert Heritage Regeneration Scheme, a draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan has been produced (Appendix 1). 1.3 Planning authorities have a duty to submit their proposals for the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas for consideration to a local public meeting, and should, when preparing schemes, seek the advice and views of local residents and community groups. 1.4 A 6-week consultation period is therefore proposed to run between 5th January and 16th February 2026, with a drop in event proposed to be held on 14th January. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members: Agree to the consultation of the draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan, noting a consultation period of 6-weeks is proposed, which would run between 5th January and 16th February 2026, with a drop in event planned to be held on 14th January. Page 129 Agenda Item 7
Page 130
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 18th NOVEMBER 2025 TARBERT CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Member approval to consult on the draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Members: Agree to consultation of the draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan noting a consultation period of 6-weeks is proposed, which would run between 5th January and 16th February 2026, with a drop in event planned to be held on 14th January. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (Appendix 1) was produced in support of funding bids to National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic Environment Scotland for a proposed Tarbert Heritage Regeneration Scheme. Submissions were made to each funder in August 2025 and are now subject to a period of review, with decisions expected in early 2026. If successful, a heritage-led regeneration project would be delivered in Tarbert between 2026 and 2031. 4.2 Conservation areas are designated under the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (Scotland) Act 1997. A conservation area can be described by its character and seeks to protect the buildings and the spaces between that are of architectural or historic interest. Its purpose is to ensure that any development or alteration positively contributes to the area’s character. Page 130
Page 131
4.3 The definition of a conservation area is contained within Section 61 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 as, “an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance”. Local planning authorities should designate and review existing and potential conservation areas, and these should be supported by Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans. A draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan has therefore been produced. 4.4 Tarbert Conservation Area was established in 1972 and extended in 1977. As a dynamic and constantly evolving entity, the review of existing areas is required and provides opportunity to assess the justification for the designation, consider the validation of boundaries, identify opportunities for enhancement and set management priorities. The purpose of the recent review was to define and evaluate the character and appearance of the existing conservation area to support funding bids for a Tarbert Heritage Regeneration Scheme and also assess whether the conservation area would benefit from extension. Its boundary was reviewed in 2019, and in 2024 with no amendments proposed. 4.5 The purpose of a Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan is to define what is important about the area’s character and appearance in order to identify its characteristics and special features, and to explain this in a clear and meaningful format. Subsequent to a period of consultation, the draft document will be amended to reflect comments received, before being brought back to PPSL for approval. Once finalised, the document would provide a framework for the positive management of change and provide a material consideration to support planning decisions. The draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan accompany this report as Appendix 1. 4.6 A consultation period of 6-weeks is proposed to run between 5th January and 16th February 2026, with a drop in event planned to be held on 14th January. Consultation questions would be hosted on the council’s website, and advertised via press release, social media and by email notification to local organisations, such as Tarbert and Skipness Community Trust and the Community Council. Hard copies of the draft document would be made available at Manse Brae and Tarbert Library, and a draft would be provided to Historic Environment Scotland. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Conservation areas are designated under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. Local planning authorities should designate and review existing and potential conservation areas, and these should be supported by Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans. A draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan has been produced and should now be subject to a period of consultation. Page 131
Page 132
5.2 This report therefore recommends that members agree to a 6-week public consultation to ensure that the document can incorporate feedback and best serve to preserve and enhance the special architectural or historic interest of the area. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy – Sections 61-63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. 6.2 Financial – None. 6.3 Legal – None. 6.4 HR – None. 6.5 Customer Service – None. 6.6 Risk – None. 6.7 Climate Change – None. 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty – None. 6.9 Equalities - protected characteristics – None. 6.10 Consumer Duty – None. 6.11 Island Communities – None. 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing – None. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead – Councillor Kieron Green 17th September 2025 For further information contact: Lorna Pearce, Senior Development Officer, 01700 501 374 / Kim de Buiteleir, Senior Planning and Strategies Officer, 01546 604 126 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Draft Tarbert Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan Page 132
Page 133
Tarbert Area Character Appraisal Argyll & Bute Council Appendix 1 Page 133
Page 134
Argyll & Bute Council Tarbert Area Character Appraisal Rev A October 2025 Photography credits: Photographs contained within this report are reproduced here under licence and/or credited where applicable. Page 134
Page 135
4.5 Open Spaces and Landscape Setting 4.5.1 Open Spaces 4.5.2 Tree Preservation Orders 4.5.3 Nature of dominant species Overview 1.0 Introduction, Purpose and Justification 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1.2 Climate Change 1.3 Community 2.0 Methodology Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plan 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Conservation Guidance 2.0 Context & Overview of Area Today 2.1 General identity & Summary of Character and Significance 2.2 Climate 2.3 SEPA Flood Maps 2.4 Planning Context 2.5 Nature and level of statutory protection / designations 3.0 Location, History and Development 3.1 Location 3.2 Geology 3.3 Settlement Development 3.4 Archaeology 4.0 Character and Appearance 4.1 Setting 4.2 Activity & Movement 4.3 Street Pattern & Topography 4.4 Buildings and Townscape 4.4.1 Scheduled Monuments 4.4.2 Key listed and unlisted buildings 4.4.3 Sense of place and intangible qualities 4.5.4 Landmark Trees 4.6 Character Areas and aspects of distinctiveness 4.6.1 The Village Centre 4.6.2 Peir Road 4.6.3 Barmore Road and Garvel Road 4.6.4 Tarbert Castle 4.6.5 Key aspects of distinctiveness 4.6.6 Negative impacts on character 5.0 Public Realm 6.0 Photographic Record of Buildings (Gazetteer) 7.0 Potential Buildings at Risk & Analysis of Sensitivity 8.0 Values and Significance 9.0 Summary of Assessment of Significance 10.0 Community Engagement 11.0 Evaluation of Vulnerabilities and Opportunities 11.1 Summary of the general fabric condition of heritage assets 11.2 Vulnerabilities of heritage assets and Conservation Area 11.3 Opportunities of heritage assets and Conservation Area 11.4 Approach to Climate Change 12.0 Opportunities for Planning Action 13.0 Conservation Strategy 14.0 Policies and Action Plan 15.0 Monitoring and Review 16.0 Appendices 16.1 Gazetteer of Heritage Assets 16.2 Community Engagement 16.3 Management & Maintenance Plan Checklist List of Contents Page 135
Page 136
Overview 1.0 Introduction, Purpose & Justification This work took place between April 2024 and March 2025. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of the appraisal and plan, in line with best conservation practice, is to review the previous draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Conservation Strategy that was carried out in 2019, and to update this accordingly. The scope included: • A review of the draft Conservation Area Appraisal and Conservation Strategy, as well as gathering and reviewing source materials • Carrying out existing and historic mapping exercises. • Preparation of a gazetteer of heritage assets of value (listed and unlisted), with recommendations for listing or conservation area(s), if applicable, and highlighting any historic buildings at risk (listed or otherwise) eligible for addition to the Buildings at risk Register. • Assessment of the cultural significance and identification of place making opportunities in line with best practice guidance. • A description of the heritage and conservation value of the area, and potential threats. • Policies and strategies. • A framework for design and maintenance standards. • Evidence of community consultation and engagement. • A short statement about how the plan will be put into practice. • Consideration as to whether any training and learning activities are necessary to sustain a conservation-led approach to managing the area over the longer- term and build upon traditional skills training and community heritage activities completed during the scheme. • Setting out good practice standards that owners of historic assets will be expected to achieve in work to their buildings and places, including maintenance. • Expressing how the long-term vision for the area will be achieved. 1.2 Climate Change In addition to the exposed conditions of the west coast of Scotland, it is essential to consider what impact increased rainfall and extreme weather, due to climate change, has on our stock of traditional buildings and townscapes, and the resulting implications on repairs and maintenance. Page 136
Page 137
DRAFT Conservation Area Appraisal & Management Plan 1.3 Community The local community need to be genuinely engaged in their environment and heritage in order that the integrity of the area’s historic character is celebrated, maintained, and managed sustainably in a way that supports a community to thrive for future generations. 2.0 Methodology The Conservation Area Appraisal was carried out first and the findings used to inform the Conservation Management Plan. The methodology, and format used to document these studies is in line with guidance given within the following: • Scottish Executive Planning Advice Note 71, Conservation Area Management, Part 1 and 2, 2004 • Stephen Bond & Derek Worthing, Managing Built Heritage, The Role of Cultural Values and Significance, 2015 • Heritage Lottery Fund, Conservation Plan Guidance, 2017 • Historic Environment Scotland, Conservation Plans: A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans • Historic Environment Scotland, Interim Guidance on the Designation of Conservation Areas and Conservation Area Consent, 2019 Methodology of research included desktop research and reference, archival research, site visits, as well as community meetings and consultations. Diagrams, maps, and photographs have been used as much as possible to create the clearest and most accurate record of Tarbert Conservation Area. Page 137
Page 138
1.0 Introduction Conservation areas are designated under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. Local planning authorities should designate and review existing and potential conservation areas, and these should be supported by Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans. The definition of a conservation area is contained within Section 61 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 as, “an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance”. Local planning authorities should designate and review existing and potential conservation areas, and these should be supported by Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans. This Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan was compiled by Studio SJM Architects. “A conservation area appraisal is a management tool which helps to identify the special interest and changing needs of an area. An appraisal provides the basis for the development of a programme of action that is compatible with the sensitivities of the historic area and enables local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties to protect and enhance conservation areas. Appraisals also inform policy and assist development control. They provide an opportunity to educate residents about the special needs and characteristics of the area and help developers identify and formulate development proposals.” PAN 71 Conservation Area Management, December 2004 1.1 Conservation Guidance Once adopted, this Conservation Area Appraisal will accompany the policies within the Local Development Plan 2 and assist in the improved management and enhancement of Tarbert to encourage and promote economic growth. It will be used by Argyll and Bute’s Planning and Conservation team as a Material Consideration when assessing appropriateness of development applications during the planning process. Anyone looking to make a change to their property is encouraged to seek advice from their local planner: Contact Planning | Argyll and Bute Council. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) have a wide range of short guides, available to download online, which contain practical information relating to carrying out works on all elements of traditional buildings, including maintenance, windows, retro-fit guidance and traditional shopfronts. • Short Guide: Maintaining Your Home | Historic Environment Scotland • Short Guide: Maintaining Your Home | Historic Environment Scotland • Short Guide: Sash and Case Windows | Historic Environment Scotland • Short Guide: Sash and Case Windows | Historic Environment Scotland • Guide to Energy Retrofit of Traditional Buildings | Hist Env Scotland • Guide to Energy Retrofit of Traditional Buildings | Hist Env Scotland • Short Guide: Scottish Traditional Shopfronts | Hist Env Scotland • Short Guide: Scottish Traditional Shopfronts | Hist Env Scotland (Note that many more short guides are available to download from the HES website.) Historic Environment Scotland’s, Engine Shed is a dedicated building conservation centre in Stirling which also offers useful and sound advice to owners of traditional buildings. Learning |The Engine Shed | Part of Historic Environment Scotland Page 138
Page 139
1.2 Planning Guidance Guidelines within this document are consistent with; • National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) principally relevant policies: Policy 7: Historic assets and places Policy 9: Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings Policy 14: Design, quality and place Policy 15: Local Living and 20 Minute neighbourhoods https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/ • The Local Development Plan 2 published by Argyll and Bute Council in early 2024. Specific relevant polices are highlighted within section 2.5 Planning Context of this document. https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/local- development-plan-2 As stated in the overview, diagrams, maps and photographs have been used as much as possible to create the most clear and accurate record of Tarbert Conservation Area. On review, the draft Conservation Area Appraisal carried out in 2019, is still generally an accurate representation of the topography and architectural characteristics of Tarbert Conservation Area. This document supersedes the 2019 draft. In line with good conservation practice, this draft document seeks to ensure that the appraisal is fully up to date in terms of condition of buildings and assessment of cultural values and significance, opportunities, and risks. Page 139
Page 140
2.0 Map on opposite page showing Consevation Area Boundary Context & Overview of Area Today Tarbert Conservation Area was established in 1972. Its boundary was extended in 1977. The area has been reviewed as follows: • 1972 - The special architectural character and historic significance of the inner harbour area of Tarbert was recognised with a Conservation Area designation. • 1977 – The Conservation Area boundary was extended to include Victorian villas along Garvel Road, Peir Road and Lady Ileene Road, as well as the curtilage of Tarbert Castle. • 2019 – The Conservation Area boundary was reviewed, and no amendments were proposed. • 2024 – The Conservation Area boundary was reviewed, and no amendments are proposed. • Tarbert Conservation Area is covered by an Article 4 Direction, meaning permitted development rights may be affected or removed. Property owners are therefore encouraged to speak with their local planner prior to embarking on works to their building. Email: planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk Conservation Areas | Argyll and Bute Council Page 140
Page 141
2.1 Map on opposite page showing Consevation Area Boundary and Conservation Area Character Areas. Identity & Summary of Character & Significance The village of Tarbert (An Tairbeart in Scottish Gaelic) is built around East Loch Tarbert, which is an inlet of Loch Fyne. The village stretches over the isthmus which links Kintyre to Knapdale and West Loch Tarbert. This location made Tarbert an important harbour, and historically a strategic trading and guard point to Kintyre and the Inner Hebrides. Its origins date back to as early as the first century, indicating a place of unique identity, with significance in terms of several categories of value including: historical, scenic, associational, and archaeological. These values are particularly evident within the boundaries of Tarbert Conservation Area. The variation of character within the Conservation Area reflects the timeline of Tarbert’s development and rich history. The draft 2019 Conservation Area Appraisal categorises the Conservation Area into four distinct character areas: • The Village Centre A mix of architectural styles and uses which radiate from the activity of the fishing harbour, stretching west to Tarbert Parish Church on Campbeltown Road. • Pier Road A series of mostly large, handsome, Victorian villas, whose plots follow one side of the road alongside the south shoreline providing panoramic views across East Loch Tarbert and Loch Fyne, continuing east from the edge of the village centre, past the East Peir and Battery Point to the Conservation Area boundary at Old Peir. • Barmore Road (North) & Garvel Road A mix of architectural styles and uses to the North of East Loch Tarbert, animated by the activity of the marina. • Tarbert Castle The curtilage of the scheduled monument of the 15th century castle tower house remains on the elevated plateau to the Southeast of the loch, overlooking Peir Road, and associated Tarbert Castle Heritage Park and Community Woodland and Nature Conservation Area in the sheltered valley beyond. Page 141
Page 142
2.2 Climate The climate in Tarbert is typical to the West of Scotland. Statistics from www. meteoblue.com recorded that in 2023, the highest temperature was around 24 degrees in July and lowest was around -2 degrees in January and December with average temperatures between 6 degrees and 17 degrees throughout the year. The same research demonstrates that during 2023 precipitation did not fall below around 110mm per month with the highest precipitation of around 175mm recorded in January and October. www.meteoblue.com also recorded a steady increase in both mean yearly precipitation and mean yearly temperatures in Tarbert from 1979 to 2023 which is consistent with Climate Change weather patterns. 2.3 1. Depth of Coastal Flooding Likelihood - Map Updated 08 Nov 2023 2. Environment Sites at Risk - Map Updated 08 Nov 2023 3. Likelihood of Area Flooding - Map Updated 08 Nov 2023 Source: Maps extracted from https://beta. sepa.scot/flooding/ flood-maps/ SEPA Flood Maps Page 142
Page 143
2.4 Planning Context Opposite page: Map extracted from LDP 2 - Diagram 6 Tourisim Source: https://storymaps. arcgis.com/storie s/0e4137e311864 857937eee8f140a eb9e Tarbert should be considered within the context of the current Local Development Plan 2 . The objective of the LDP2, published in early 2024, recognises that, “Argyll and Bute’s economic success is built on a growing population.” Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0e4137e311864857937eee8f140aeb9e In particular, within the LDP2, Tarbert is identified as; • a ‘Key Settlement’ • ‘not economically fragile’ • a Tourist Development Opportunity with the Cowal Way, existing cycle track network, the ferry route and Argyll Sea Kayak Trail all passing through the town – see Diagram 6 Tourism • as an area where there is an existing public electric car charging point, on a ferry route, on a main trunk road and where infrastructure action should be taken – see Diagram 7 Connectivity The Areas for Action Schedule within LDP2 highlights the following potential development opportunities; • A3004 Tarbert Harbour and Conservation Area Strategic; harbour improvements; regeneration and environmental improvements, and flood protection scheme • A3013 Tarbert - South Campbeltown Road/Back Street Local; land use rationalisation and redevelopment Business & Industry • B3007 0.7 Tarbert - Glasgow Road Industry, Business and Storage Housing • H3024 Tarbert – Oakhill/Easfield 50 units Potential Development Areas • P3019 Tarbert – Campbeltown Road Mixed use – housing and open space Page 143
Page 144
2.5 Photograph: View South East over the Loch. Nature and level of statutory protection / designations As well as having Conservation Area status, the village of Tarbert has ten listed buildings, and two scheduled monuments within Tarbert Castle Heritage Park; all of which are within the Conservation Area. The trees, and vegetation, within Tarbert Conservation Area contribute significantly to its character and as such any tree within the Conservation Area is protected and permission may be required to cut, lop, or uproot etc. In addition to this, there are a number of Tree Preservation Orders. Reference should be made to paragraph 73 of the following: Scottish Planning Series: Planning Circular 1 2011: Tree Preservation Orders East Loch Fyne is within the Clyde Marine Region, but is not a designated Marine Protected Area, nor are there any other associated statutory protections. 3.0 Location, History & Development Page 144
Page 145
3.1 Location Tarbert nestles around the natural harbour of East Loch Tarbert. The landscape is characterised by the local geology and varied topography which blends coastal and rugged bedrock hill formations creating a picturesque back drop to the village. The coastline is dotted with small, rocky coves and sandy beaches, providing views across East Loch Tarbert and beyond to Loch Fyne. The working harbour to the south of the loch is sheltered and often filled with fishing boats, contrasting with the leisure of the marina and yachts to the north, reflecting both historic and contemporary maritime significance. Inland, the terrain quickly rises into a series of rolling hills and rugged high ground. The hills are covered with a mix of heather, bracken, and areas of ancient woodland, providing a rich tapestry of colours throughout the year. The highest points offer panoramic views of the surrounding landscape, including the intricate coastline of the Kintyre peninsula, the distant peaks of the Scottish Highlands, and on clear days, the islands of Jura and Islay. As previously noted, this unique location historically made Tarbert an important harbour and strategic trading and guard point to Kintyre and the Inner Hebrides. Indeed, the ancient hill fort, which later became the site of the Royal Castle, and the fishing port and walls were constructed to take advantage of the natural topography. 3.2 Map: Geological Map Source: Argyll and the Islands, A Landscape Fashioned by Geology, David Stephenson and Jon Merritt Geology Tarbert and the immediate surrounding areas of Knapdale and Kintyre are formed of Metamorphosed sedimentary rocks - mainly Dalradian (late Precambrian) and Dykes (Palaeogene). As is the case across Kintyre, large loose rocks can be found some distance away from similar rocks, around Tarbert. The land itself is peaty and mossy, which accounts for the large areas of woodland and forestry. Page 145
Page 146
3.3 The development of settlement in Tarbert reflects the pattern of land use that is still evident today. A timeline of key events throughout the history of Tarbert have informed settlement development. Settlement development 3.3.1 Photograph: Historic Photograph from Tarbert Life - undated. Likely early 19th century. Source: Tarbert Life. Early Development It is known that East Loch Tarbert was used as a shelter for fisherman and traders for over a thousand years. There are records of a settlement in the area as early as the first century, with the oldest part of the now ruined castle, presumed to date back to a seventh century hill fort. Tarbert became a royal burgh and a much more developed settlement with the construction of the Royal Castle, on the site of the ancient hill fort, to the south of East Loch on the high ground overlooking the isthmus between East and West Lochs Tarbert, at the northern end of the Kintyre peninsula. This brought about increased trade and a growing population who were employed in administration and law enforcement. From the 1700s Tarbert was established as a thriving fishing community, and it is recognised that a small village had developed to the west of the castle. Local archives suggest this development consisted of a row of simple thatched cottages with earth floors, along what is now known as Back Street, with similar cottages dispersed across the hillside. Page 146
Page 147
3.3.2 Photographs: Historic Photographs from Tarbert Life - undated. Likely mid 19th century. Source: Tarbert Life. 1800s Development Developments in the early 1800s started to inform the street pattern and character of the village as it is today. Improvements to the harbour wall by Thomas Telford along with the introduction of steamers in the early 1800s meant increasing population and number of visitors to Tarbert. In turn, further infrastructure such as houses, lodging houses and shops, started to be built on the front street and Tarbert Church was established in 1837. By the late 1800s key development such as Battery point, an extension to Tarbert Church, a Cholera isolation Hospital, a wooden landing place, the Peir Road and Garvel Road villas as well as the historic Old Templars Hall had all been constructed. By this time Tarbert had become a thriving community and holiday resort supported by the construction of the Tarbert and Victoria hotels as well as around 58 shops, such as sweet shops, grocers, bakers, butchers, tailors and chandlers. There were also banks, tea rooms, a fish and chip shop and cinema. 3.4 Map: Tarbert Heritage Park Source: https://www. tarbertcastle.info Archaeology Tarbert Castle Trust in partnership with Historic Environment Scotland, Kilmartin House Museum and the local school and community, has commissioned a series of excavations in and around the site of the castle. Reports and findings can be found on Tarbert Castle Trust’s website. https://www.tarbertcastle.info/archaeological-dig Page 147
Page 148
4.0 Character and Appearance 4.1 Setting Tarbert Conservation Area covers the heart of the village of Tarbert. The village is set in picturesque natural landscape and surroundings, forming a panoramic backdrop of seascape, rugged hills and coastline to its built heritage, in a way that creates an intrinsic link between nature and architecture. This intrinsic link is likely why the configuration of the natural setting has fundamentally informed the development and function of the built environment over many centuries from the location of the castle as a strategic vantage point to the location of the fishing harbour set within the sheltered natural inlet of the East Loch. From these two strategic settlements, places of worship, commerce and trade, homes and later tourism and leisure have filled the landscape between, radiating from the shores of the loch. The extent and topography of the Conservation Area means there are numerous significant panoramic vistas to, across and from, which contribute greatly to the character of the setting. Notably, these views are framed by the natural topography of the rock formations and shoreline or are anchored between the verticality of the castle tower ruins and Tarbert Parish Church. Photograph looking South to the Village Centre, Castle and Harbour from Garvel Road. Map on opposite page showing key views and focal points. Page 148
Page 149
4.2 Activity & Movement The diagram on the opposite page highlights the following activity and movement within the Conservation Area: • Direction • Mode • Volume • Circulation, and levels of activity • Accessibility This activity and movement is impacted by day, night and seasonal variations. Page 149
Page 150
4.3 Extract of Map - surveyed in 1865 -1866. Published in 1893. Street Pattern & Topography As established, the street pattern of Tarbert Conservation Area and wider village is intrinsically linked to the topography and historical development of the area. This topography has provided a natural restriction to the development of the village. The village follows a logical pattern of streets radiating from Harbour Road on the loch side edge in the village centre, graduating up into the hillside with Pier Road extending from the village centre along the south of the loch side, eastward to the Old Pier. The main routes through the village centre form a slight ‘V’ shape where Campbeltown Road and Barmore Road slope to meet at the tip of the harbour walls. Barmore Road rises north up the hillside to leave Tarbert, while Garvel Road forks off to follow the northern edge of the loch side. In a street pattern that has remained relatively unchanged for centuries, streets are principally loch facing as they hug the loch side providing panoramic viewpoints. Similarly, as the streets radiate up the hillside from the loch side, views to the loch are maintained. Page 150
Page 151
4.3.1 Photographs of the Old Library on Barmore Road close and back court with cobbles. Frontages & Beyond These strong street frontages are punctured by vennels secured by metal gates which lead to back court areas that are often carved out of the bedrock or within rock outcrops which often retain their native flora of gorse bracken and brambles. In many of these back courts there are historic structures, such as outhouses and stables, ancillary to the main buildings. Arguably, the pattern of vennels, court yards and ancillary buildings contributes just as significantly to the street pattern and character of Tarbert Conservation Area as the frontages. Photographs Top left: Pend at the Starfish Restaurant on Castle St. Top right: Pend at 1 Argyll Place. Bottom left and right: back court / garden areas that carved out of bedrock to the buildings along Harbour Road. Page 151
Page 152
4.4 Photograph: View looking Eastwards towards the Village Centre from Pier Road. Buildings & Townscape 4.4 .1 Photograph: Description Tarbert, Tarbert Castle. General view from South. Date 1967 Collection Records of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), Edinbugh Catalogue Number SC 2527117 Category On-line Digital Images Map: Description Tarbert, Tarbert Castle. Part plan of site, sheet 1. Date 1966 Collection Records of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS), Edinburgh Catalogue Number DP 339485 Category On-line Digital Images Scheduled Monuments A scheduled monument is a site of national importance that is protected by law and maintained by Historic Environment Scotland. Scheduled monuments can be buildings, structures, caves, or excavations that are above or below the surface. Tarbert Castle SM276 designated in 1935 Full HES listing can be viewed online: Tarbert Castle (SM276) Page 152
Page 153
02 4.4 .2 Photographs: Top right: Tarbert Hotel Harbour Street Bottom left: Old Harbour Master’s Office, Harbour Street Bottom right: Larkfield Garvel Road, Tarbert Key listed and unlisted buildings Refer to Gazetteer within the appendix for listing, description and photographs of each building within the Conservation Area. The table on the following pages lists key listed and unlisted buildings. Building / Structure Category Listing / Scheduled Monument Within Tarbert Conservation Area Within Tarbert Regeneration Scheme Boundary ‘Larkfield’, Garvel Road C Yes No ‘Lorne Villa’, Garvel Road B Yes No ‘Lorne Cottage’, Garvel Road C Yes No Victoria Hotel, Barmore Road C Yes Yes Tarbert Harbour Walls Including Former Weighbridge, Slipways and Beilding B Yes Yes Tarbert Church Of Scotland, Campbeltown Road B Yes No Tarbert Hotel, Harbour Street, Kintyre Place, And Church Street C Yes Yes ‘Queensgate’ Peir Road C Yes Yes Columba Hotel, Peir Road C Yes Yes Peir House, Peir Road C Yes Yes Argyll Place & ancillary structures Not listed Yes Yes Page 153
Page 154
4.4 .3 Photographs Top right: view to the marina from the harbour. Bottom right: view back to the village from Pier Road. Sense of place and intangible qualities The way in which the built environment engages with the dramatic natural geology and coastline provides a unique experiential quality within each character area of the Conservation Area. There is a contrast between the Village Centre and the other character areas within the Conservation Area. The village centre is noisy with the bustle of people, sea gulls, traffic, and general activity in and around the harbour, marina and shops. There is a quieter, calmer atmosphere around the high ground at the castle, along Pier Road and Garvel Road. These three areas offer incredible vantage points and a connection to nature. Furthermore, the castle remains and archaeology within Tarbert Castle Heritage Park, offer a connection to an ancient past and geology. Along Pier Road and Garvel Road there is a close connection to the loch where the lapping of water and bird song are inescapable. Several public benches are available throughout the Conservation Area, which offer people the opportunity to sit and experience the unique qualities of each space. It is perhaps these intangible qualities and sense of place that have made Tarbert such an attractive place to people since the first century. The Old Bank Not listed Yes Yes The Old Chandlery, Harbour St Not listed Yes Yes The Old Harbour Master Office Not listed Yes Yes Leitch & Son Sailmakers, Garval Terrace Not listed Yes No Undercliffe, Harbour St Not listed Yes Yes Quay House, Harbour St Not listed Yes Yes Page 154
Page 155
4.5 Photographs Top right: Southern backdrop of the Conservation Area. Bottom right: view to Garvel Road and the marina from the harbour. Open Spaces and Landscape Setting As described, Tarbert’s natural topography has largely informed the plan of the village and as such there are no formal public designed landscapes or gardens within the Conservation Area. Telford’s harbour wall is one of the most significant man-made structures impacting upon the natural landscape setting however even this construction has been designed to support the topography of the natural harbour. The beauty of the natural topography and landscape setting of the Conservation Area and wider geological context of the village of Tarbert, described previously, is augmented by the lush vegetation that exists all year round in both private gardens and public areas. Generally, the vegetation is a mix of native and some non-native species of flora and trees, mostly typical to the costal location. Over time introduced planting and native woodland have created an important characteristic of the Conservation Area. 4.5 .1 Open Spaces There are a number of public spaces within the Conservation Area, which are distinct in their character and landscape setting. Page 155
Page 156
4.5 .1.1 Tarbert Castle Heritage Park 4.5 .1.2 The Promenade Photograph: Looking south to Tarbert Castle Heritage Park which forms the back drop to the village centre character area. Tarbert Castle Heritage Park is a public area located on the high open grassland plateau around the castle, which leads to an orchard, community woodland and sculpture trail beyond. Places to sit, informal pathways and boardwalks lead through interpretation of the historic castle structure and adjacent archaeological finds as well as to key panoramic viewpoints over the village of Tarbert, the loch and the Kintyre beyond. More information relating to Tarbert Castle Heritage Park can be found at: https://www.tarbertcastle.info/ The woodland in this area was planted in the early 2000s and includes native tree species such as Alder, Birch, Hawthorn, Rowan and Willow with a ground cover of Calluna, also known as Ling heather. The importance of this area of land on the character of the village was established in 1977 when the Conservation Area was enlarged to include the slope to the woodland. This high ground is important as it provides the southern backdrop to the Conservation Area. Photographs: Top: view to the West along the promenade. Bottom: The marnia and leisure area. The modern pedestrian promenade runs parallel to Garvel Road at lower level hugging the shore of the loch. It provides an area of car-free public realm, connecting Harbour Street to the marina, leisure and events developments to the northwest of the loch. This area also provides key viewpoints back to the village centre and the south shore of the loch to Pier Road. The adjacent landscape of the Garvel peninsula is relatively untouched with rugged rock outcrops and native trees such as Birch, Hazel, Willow and Scots Pine, with a ground cover of bracken, blaeberry, ferns and sedge grasses. Page 156
Page 157
4.5 .1.3 Pier Road 4.5 .1.4 Tarbert Parish Church Photographs: Informal parking eroding the grass verges along Pier Road, Although there are no pavements or footpaths, Pier Road could be said to provide an informal promenade to the south side of the loch. It is characterised by villas with dry stone boundary walls to the south of the road with an informal grass verge of varying widths to the shoreline, which extends right to the boundary of the Conservation Area at the East Loch Tarbert viewpoint and memorial. The tops of some of the boundary walls to the private plots are planted with Privet or Griselinia hedges while some boundaries are less formally planted with ornamental shrubs such as Hydrangea and Fuschia. A common characteristic is vegetation growth of sedums and ferns from the dry stone walls and bedrock planted up with ornamental shrubs. Playfully coloured seating and some shelters are dotted along the grass verge on this route facing outwards to the rocky shoreline and verge. However as noted in the 2020 Conservation Appraisal, the character of this setting is at risk due to informal parking eroding the grass verges. Photographs: Left: view East down Campbeltown Road to village centre. Right: view of Tarbert Parish Church North Elevation. Tarbert Parish church sits to the western extent of the Conservation Area on a grassy embankment raised from street level. The church sits back from the pattern of the street scape creating an open space around the front of the building to signify its importance to the community at the time of building. The gates to the grounds are not locked allowing free public access to this space. The raised ground also assists in the verticality of the church tower which is a significant element of the townscape skyline. Page 157
Page 158
4.5 .1.5 White Shores (Port Ban) 4.5 .2 Tree Preservation Orders White Shores skirts the northern side of Tarbert Harbour at the mouth of East Loch. Although out-with the Conservation Area, it is an open public space offering key viewpoints back to the townscape and sea inlets. Photograph: Left: Trees and vegetation growth on the rock outcrops along Pier Road. Right: Common Alder Tree at Battery Point is the only landmark tree within the Tarbert Conservation Area. Any tree within the Conservation Area is protected and permission may be required to cut, lop, or uproot etc. In addition to this there are a number of Tree Protection Orders within the Conservation Area. See paragraph 73 of: Scottish Planning Series: Planning Circular 1 2011: Tree Preservation Orders The trees within Tarbert Conservation Area play a significant role in the character of the landscape setting and it is important that this is considered when considering any future development. Page 158
Page 159
4.5 .3 Nature of dominant species 4.6 Character Areas and aspects of distinctiveness 4.5 .4 The following native tree species can be found within the Conservation Area; Alder, Birch, Common Ash & Sessile Oak The following non-native tree species can be found within the Conservation Area; Beech, Sycamore, Whitebeam and Ornamental Cherry Dominant evergreen species is Scots Pine. Non-native ‘exotic’ tree species as follows; Crimean Pine, False Cypress, Monkey Puzzle and Silver Firs Landmark Trees Photograph: View from the marina to the harbour, village centre and castle. The character of an area is derived from what makes it unique in comparison to any other place. The character of Tarbert Conservation Area can be categorised into four distinct character areas; the Village Centre, Pier Road, Barmore Road & Garvel Road and Tarbert Castle. Generally, within each area the prominence and importance of traditional windows to the overall character of the Conservation Area is of considerable significance. A Landmark tree can be defined as a tree or grove of trees of historical or cultural value, an outstanding specimen, an unusual species and/or of significant community benefit. The Common Alder Tree at Battery Point is the only such tree within the Tarbert Conservation Area. Page 159
Page 160
4.6.1 The Village Centre Harbour St, Barmore Rd & Campbeltown Rd Photograph: Top: View looking East along Harbour Street. Bottom: View showing harbour from Tarbert Castle. Opposite page: View East towards Harbour Street from Barmore Road. The iconic character of the village centre was predominately established around the activity and development of the fishing harbour in the 1800s. The uninterrupted line of colourful building frontages, many with traditional shop fronts, creates a strong sense of enclosure around the harbour from which the townscape pattern is set. The Category B listed dry stone harbour walls, beilding in the mid harbour, weighbridge, and cottage, constructed of locally quarried stone, which were designed by Thomas Telford. These remain integral elements of the village centre and harbour character. The lines of the harbour walls act to reinforce the architectural enclosure. Although mostly 19th century construction, there are varying architectural styles with some modern insertions, all varying in quality. The scale of buildings is a mix of two and three storeys with attic dormers and distinct gable ends, creating a rhythm of change in scale and articulation of roofline which is unique to Tarbert and a key townscape feature. Furthermore, the characterful articulated rooflines of the buildings to the inner harbour are complimented by the Scots Gothic steeple of Tarbert Parish Church further up the hillside on Campbeltown Road. Page 160
Page 161
4.6.1.2 The Village Centre Harbour St - West Photograph: Top: View looking East along Harbour Street. Bottom: Out buildings at 1 Argyll Place. Generally, the buildings along Harbour Street follow a traditional tenement arrangement with shop fronts or public access at ground level and housing above creating a strong commercial heart to the village. Shop frontages which have retained their historic proportions and features contribute significantly to the character of the area. This pattern is interrupted only by buildings such as the Tarbert Hotel and Templar Arts Centre and the poor quality modern WC block. Beyond the street frontages of the buildings along Harbour Road and the village centre area are ‘back courts’ which are cut into the rock formations of the hillside. Accessed through pends many of these areas contain small scale out-buildings or the remains of, which historically were likely to have been stables or for other uses. The out buildings at Argyll Place are an interesting example. ¬ The character and scale of the outhouses within the ‘back courts’, which are reminiscent of the older village of Tarbert, continues behind Harbour Street, along Castle Street, School Road and Brunswick Street creating another important defining element of the townscape. As Harbour Street progresses east, the Page 161
Page 162
4.6.1.2 The Village Centre Harbour St - East 4.6.1.3 The Village Centre Barmore Road Photograph: Top: View looking West along Harbour Street. Bottom: Undercliffe building. traditional retail units stop and buildings associated with the fishing industry begin indicating a change in character and scale of architecture. One storey buildings such as those at Fish Quay and the Harbour Authority, the old Chandlery and old Harbour Masters office have an industrial quality. The Undercliffe tenements have arched openings with ledged and braced doors at ground floor. The juxtaposition of these building types with the contrasting village centre tenement typology contribute greatly to the unique character of the area, reinforcing the significance of the fishing industry in Tarbert. The southern end of Barmore Road Photograph: Top: View looking North down Barmore Road. Bottom: Old Library window details. Opposite page: View West to Barmore Road from the harbour. forms a ‘V’ shape with Harbour Street as it follows the line of the harbour, with the buildings following the same scale and architectural tenement typologies as those described on Harbour Street. Particularly distinctive architecture such as the Bannockburn Building and the old Library contribute significantly to the townscape character. The continuous street frontage to the commercial heart of the village stops at the prominent bright yellow, old Victoria Hotel. The yellow gable of the old Victoria Hotel acts as marker when arriving on Barmore Road as it introduces the gable-to-gable rhythm of the village centre streetscape. From here this frontage rhythm breaks down into detached mostly Victorian villas on the hillside surrounded by lush vegetation. Campbeltown Road becomes a continuation of Harbour Street westward, at the ‘V’ with Barmore Road, making this an important point in the Village Centre streetscape. It is marked on the southern edge by a red sandstone two storey building with a unique turreted corner bay. There is a mix of shopfronts within the village centre, a noticeable number of which are classically proportioned. There are also a number of traditional timber windows of note. Page 162
Page 163
4.6.1.4 The Village Centre Campbeltown Road Photograph: Top: Beginning of Campbeltown Road from the Village Centre. Bottom: View East towards the Village Centre from Campbeltown Road. Campbeltown Road consists of residential plots of various dates and architectural styles on both sides of the road. However, the most prominent building is Tarbert Parish Church. Sitting in an elevated position over the village, with its Scots Gothic tower, the architecture creates many key views and is a critical element of the townscape character. Page 163
Page 164
4.6.2 Photograph: Top: View East along Pier Road. Bottom: Modern extension to the old Columba Hotel (Category C listed) Pier Road Pier Road is an eastward continuation of Harbour Street. It is formed of a composition of predominantly, handsome Victorian villas of various scales, whose plots follow one side of the road along the south lochside providing panoramic views across East Loch Tarbert and Loch Fyne, continuing east from the edge of the village centre, past the East Pier and Battery Point to the Conservation Area boundary at Old Pier. Most plots are demarcated by freestanding dry-stone walls that are in retention to the front / roadside. The architecture of Pier Road is reflective of the prosperity of the village around the Victorian era. The pattern of the dry-stone walls and decorative iron gates to gardens with their mature and ornamental planting, that appear to be carved out of the hillside bedrock, contribute significantly to the character of this area. In contrast Pier House is distinct in its older, more simple architectural form as it deviates from the Victorian street pattern sitting hard to the roadside with no front garden. Again this contributes to the character of Pier Road in revealing an earlier domestic architectural style. 4.6.2.1 Photograph: Top: Old Pier House (Category C lised) Bottom left: Fishermen’s memorial at Old Pier. Bottom right: East Pier Pier Road East The relative tranquility of much of Pier Road is interrupted by the daily flow of passengers and vehicles at the roll-on roll-off ferry slip at Battery Point as well as the small scale fishing which takes place off timber East Pier. Indeed this activity is heightened when the Waverly docks and several hundred passengers descend onto Pier Road to walk into the village centre. Tarbert’s deep routed connection with the water is reinforced at the Old Pier where a poignant memorial to two fishermen has been placed. Page 164
Page 165
4.6.3 Barmore Rd (North) & Garvel Road 4.6.3.1 Garvel Road Views Photograph: Top: Northern end of Barmore Road. Bottom right: Lorne Villa on Garvel Road - Category C listed, burnt out in a house fire in 2020. Generally, this character area is a mix of architectural styles and uses to the North of East Loch Tarbert, animated by the activity of the marina. The Northern end of Barmore Road and northern tip of Lady Ileene Road are in an elevated position. Low plot density means there are a small number of cottages and semi-detached dwellings with frontages on to Barmore Road, characterised by their rubble boundary walls and mature garden planting and hedges. The townscape character is compromised in this area by the varying quality of contemporary development which does not respond to the established boundary patterns. Garvel Road sweeps down below Barmore Road as it follows the line of the lochside to the north. The marina and associated single storey contemporary buildings, dominate to the west end while the road continues east, the character is quiet and domestic. In ways the character of Garvel Road is similar to Pier Road however Garvel Road is slightly denser and more informal in plot layout and there are more contemporary dwellings of varying quality. Photograph: Top: Sail makers on Garvel Road. Bottom: View to Garvel Road and the marina from the harbour. Perhaps the key character value of this area is assessed in relation to the views to and from Garvel Road and how they impact the wider conservation area. This area also provides significant associations with not only Tarbert’s maritime cultural heritage but its importance to the village today. Page 165
Page 166
4.6.4 Photograph: Top: View East to the castle tower Bottom: View to the castle tower from Pier Road. Tarbert Castle This character area of Tarbert Castle includes the curtilage of the 15th century castle tower house remains, which is a scheduled monument. The castle tower is located on the elevated plateau to the Southeast of the loch, overlooking Pier Road, and associated with the Tarbert Castle Heritage Park and Community Woodland and Nature Conservation Area in the sheltered valley beyond. There is a quintessentially Scottish romanticism about the ruins within this conserved hillside that is special. The high position of the castle not only acts as an indicator to the inner harbour but provides an enduring focal point that contributes significantly to the character of Tarbert Conservation Area. Indeed the draft 2019 Conservation Area Appraisal remarks, ‘The ruinous composition has a townscape counterpoint to the insistent verticality of the steeple.’ These two vertical focal points act as bookends to the village. From the tower itself, there are unparallelled panoramic views over Loch Fyne and the Western shore of the Cowal Peninsula as well as down on to the roofscape of Pier Road and the inner harbour itself and across to Garvel and Barmore Road character areas. The interpretation, walkways, seating, and covered shelters make the castle grounds a place where people can spend time. 4.6.5 Photograph: Opposite page:view East to Harbour Street and the Harbour. Key aspects of distinctiveness We have identified the following characteristics as contributing to Tarbert Conservation Area’s unique character. These aspects should be protected and enhanced when considering any future development. • Tarbert Castle and Heritage park • The townscapes intrinsic relationship to the natural landscape and lochside bay setting • Connection with the water and panoramic vistas / key views • Strong frontage, gables and articulated roofline of the Village Centre Character Area • Back Courts and Pends within the Village Centre Character Area • Distinct character of each area within the Conservation Area – residential, working fishing port & harbour, the busy village centre, the marina and the quiet of Tarbert Castle and Old Pier • Category B listed harbour walls • Distinctive skyline with contrasting vertical structures – Tarbert Castle and church steeple • Historic fishing related structures and architectural elements, particularly the store doors • The prominence and importance of traditional timber windows Page 166
Page 167
4.6.6 Negative impacts on character Following our study of the historic development and unique character of Tarbert Conservation Area it is necessary to list any negative factors that detract from or threaten the special character and appearance of the townscape. Generally, the building fabric and associated traditional features and materials, within the Conservation Area, are vulnerable due to several factors which are often linked: • The age of the building stock – mostly 19th century • Lack of planned maintenance and inspections which is often linked with ownership and vacant properties and lack of knowledge. • Flooding / Severe weather conditions due to West of Scotland location and Climate Change • Economic Climate and escalating cost of repairs • Lack of traditional skills • Difficulty and cost of safe access to carry out inspections and repairs • Lack of public knowledge regarding historic building conservation and maintenance or grants available. • Absentee owners • Inappropriate development in the Conservation Area • Inappropriate alterations to heritage assets • Loss of historic architectural detail from heritage assets • Inappropriate shop frontages and signage. It is understood that issues around closing businesses and vacant shop units can be attributed to lack of affordable housing to buy or rent for workers. Businesses are therefore unable to recruit or retain staff. Inadequate public transport can also make employment in Tarbert prohibitive. Page 167
Page 168
5.0 Public Realm Photograph: Top left: Tarbert Hotel falling into disrepair - hotel not in use. Top right: Loss of historic architectural detail. Bottom left: inappropriate shop frontages and signage. Bottom right: UPVC windows and downpipes and cement repairs. Photograph: Top right: benches placed at view points along the lochside on Pier Road. Bottom left: Wayfinding signage and interpretation panels at stairs to Tarbert Castle from Harbour Street. Bottom right: Wayfinding signage, interpretation and seating in the vi;;age centre at the corner of Harbour Street and Barmore Road. Street furniture is adequately provided, well maintained, and well positioned at interesting vantage points around the Conservation Area and beyond. Way finding signage for visitors and pedestrians could be improved. Page 168
Page 169
6.0 Photographic Record of Buildings Gazetteer 7.0 Potential Buildings at Risk & Analysis of Sensitivity Photograph: Bottom left: Harbour Street and 1 Argyll Place in the village centre. Bottom right: Queen’s Gate, Pier Road (Category C listed) A photographic record of the buildings and structures within the Conservation Area is provided as an appendix to this report within a Gazetteer. Photographs were taken between May and October 2024. The photographs are intended to record the condition of the buildings at this time including and any alterations carried out to serve as a monitoring indicator and enforcement tool if required. The photographic survey shows that the condition of the buildings varies due to the factors documented previously. Photograph: Bottom left: Tarbert Hotel, Harbour Street. Bottom right: Glendale, Kintyre Street. The Scottish Civic Trust definition of a building at risk is the following; A Building at Risk is usually a listed building, or an unlisted building within a conservation area, that meets one or several of the following criteria: • vacant with no identified new use • suffering from neglect and/or poor maintenance • suffering from structural problems • fire damaged • unsecured and open to the elements • threatened with demolition As of September 2024, the Buildings at Risk Register has been paused while alternative approaches are considered. At this moment in time, no more buildings are currently being considered for inclusion. However, the following buildings, which contribute to the character of the Conservation Area, are particularly vulnerable and meet some of the criteria of a Building at Risk. Page 169
Page 170
01 7.1 Schedule of Buildings at Risk The following schedule lists the buildings considered to be at risk and reasoning why. Building / Structure Category Listing / Scheduled Monument Within Tarbert Conservation Area Within Tarbert Regeneration Scheme Boundary Glendale, Kintyre Street Not listed Yes Yes • vacant with no identified new use • suffering from neglect and/or poor maintenance • suffering from structural problems (TBC by Engineer) ‘Lorne Villa’, Garvel Road B Yes No • fire damaged Out buildings within back courts generally Some may be listed within the curtilage of a listed building Yes Yes • vacant with no identified new use • suffering from neglect and/or poor maintenance • suffering from structural problems (TBC by Engineer) • unsecured and open to the elements East Pier Not Listed Yes No • suffering from neglect and/or poor maintenance • suffering from structural problems (TBC by Engineer) Tarbert Hotel, Harbour Street, Kintyre Place, And Church Street C Yes Yes • vacant with no identified new use • suffering from neglect and/or poor maintenance Page 170
Page 171
7.2 Summary 8.0 Values & Significance Photograph: Top right: the old Bank, Harbour Street. Bottom right: Victoria Hotel, Barmore Road. Town and Country Planning legislation provides laws and regulations that provide protection to built heritage at risk. In addition to the buildings identified as potentially at risk, the village centre is also vulnerable to the national trend of decline in the local high street which in turn has a significant impact on the character of the place. The village centre has seen the recent closure of key amenities including the bank and butchers as well as the relocation of Tarbert Life, which has left a prominent corner unit vacant. The Tarbert Hotel is a listed building located in another prominent position at the heart of the village centre, within the Conservation Area, that has fallen into disrepair and is now closed to the public. Indeed, the Victoria Hotel on Barmore Road is also closed to the public and is at risk of also falling into disrepair. For the purposes of this Conservation Area Appraisal, the values used are those set out in the book Managing the Built Heritage: the Role of Cultural Values and Significance by Stephen Bond and Derek Worthing. It should be noted that significance is assessed in relation to social and cultural value while character can be defined as a unique set of qualities that distinguish one place from another. Levels of significance: • Exceptional - international importance • Considerable - national importance (e.g. category A-listed, scheduled monument, Inventory landscape) • Some - regional importance or group value • Limited - local importance • Unknown/No - insufficient information or no evident significance Page 171
Page 172
01 8.1 Schedule Summary The following schedule lists the values and level of significance of key areas within the Conservation Area. • Aesthetic • Scenic/panoramic • Architectural / technological • Historical • Associational • Archaeological • Economic • Educational • Recreational • Artistic • Social • Commemorative • Symbolic / iconic • Value • Spiritual & Religious • Inspirational • Ecological • Environmental Value Key Area Level of Significance Aesthetic All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value Considerable Scenic/panoramic All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value Considerable Architectural / technological All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value, but the Harbour Walls in the Village Centre Character Area are arguably the most significant. Some Historical All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value, but Tarbert Castle Character Area is arguably the most significant. Considerable Associational Village Centre and Tarbert Castle Character Areas Some Archaeological Tarbert Castle Character Area Considerable Economic All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value, but Tarbert Castle Character Area and Village Centre Character Area arguably the most significant. Considerable Educational All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value, but Tarbert Castle Character Area and Village Centre Character Area arguably the most significant. Considerable Page 172
Page 173
02 8.2 Photograph: Tarbert Harbour Description of Values The following section describes the the values and reasoning for level of significance. Recreational All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value, but Tarbert Castle Character Area and Village Centre Character Area and the marina are arguably the most significant. Considerable Artistic All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value Limited Social All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value, but the Village Centre Character Area and the marina are arguably the most significant. Considerable Commemorative Old Pier, Pier Road Character Area Some Symbolic / iconic All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value Considerable Value Key Area Level of Significance Spiritual & Religious Tarbert Castle Character Area & Tarbert Church Of Scotland, Campbeltown Road, Tarbert Village Centre Character Area Limited Inspirational All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value Considerable Ecological All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value (with the Village Centre Character area being least significant) Considerable Environmental All areas of the Conservation Area contribute to this value Considerable Page 173
Page 174
8.2.1 Aesthetic Value 8.2.2 Scenic / Panoramic Photographs: Bottom left: Detail of a garden wall at the eastern end of Pier Road. Bottom right: Lochside with view to the castle tower at Pier Road. (capacity to elicit sensory pleasure: atmosphere, spaces, colours, textures, sounds and even smells) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: The definition of Aesthetic as set out in the categories that inform this document, states this is ‘what makes a sense of place’ and should take cognisance of full sensory experience of the place – both tangible and intangible. In the case of Tarbert Conservation Area, it is an important example of a West of Scotland fishing community, within a picturesque landscape setting. Each character area defined by its aesthetic and unique atmosphere, which is created through sensory experience – materiality, colour, smell and sound, as well as the architecture and relationship to the land and water. Photograph: Panoramic view from Castle Heritage Park. (scenic: beauty in a confined setting / panoramic: long views and sweeping outward vistas) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: These values are closely related to aesthetic values but are concerned with scenic outward vistas and the more confined beauty of a smaller setting. Each character area of Tarbert Conservation area offers their own unique long views and sweeping outwards vistas to the village harbour, East Loch and Kintyre beyond, representing important viewpoints of this area of the West of Scotland. Page 174
Page 175
8.2.3 Architectural / Technological 8.2.4 Historical Photograph: View around the harbour and walls. (example of an architectural idea or movement; craft value; development of technology and materials) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Some Reasoning: Architectural value is concerned with representing a fine example of an architectural typology or development of technology. In this respect Tarbert Conservation Area has some significance which is evidenced in the Category B designation of some buildings and the harbour walls. Photograph: Historic Photograph from Tarbert Life - undated. Likely mid 19th century. Source: Tarbert Life. (capacity of a site to convey links to the past) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value is of fundamental importance in the assessment of built heritage and to some extent underpins and validates the other values. This value is concerned with a site’s capacity to convey a link to the past. Tarbert Conservation Area, with all its components in relation to fishing and maritime, has considerable historical value in conveying links to the changing daily life in a West of Scotland coastal community, which date back to as early as the first century. Page 175
Page 176
8.2.5 Associational 8.2.6 Archaeological Photograph: Historic postcard of Tarbert Castle from Tarbert Life - dated 1904 Source: Tarbert Life. (substantial link to a person or event) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Some Reasoning: As this value is related to a particular event or person, we have assessed that Tarbert Conservation Area is of some associational significance. Although the area is of considerable historical and archaeological significance and has links to Robert the Bruce, as far as we understand, there are no particularly unique links to significant people or historic events. (value linked to educational value and relates to be ability to be a source of information about the past through scientific investigation) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value relates to the site being able to serve as an educational tool. Linked with heritage value there is considerable educational value associated with Tarbert Castle and the surrounding Heritage Park. Furthermore, there may be further educational value in any undiscovered archaeology in relation to the castle and early settlement that could potentially increase this value to exceptional dependent on discoveries. Page 176
Page 177
8.2.7 Economic 8.2.8 Educational (value linked to how much money can be generated either directly through admissions, sales etc or indirectly through attracting visitors, value of land etc) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value is concerned with the area’s ability to generate revenue either directly or indirectly. All areas of the Conservation Area do generate income for the community at present however each area, particularly the village centre and Tarbert Castle, potentially have the ability to increase generation of direct and indirect income in line with the Local Development Plan 2 policies to grow Argyll and Bute communities. (derived from historical value of the place and a person’s sense of curiosity to learn more etc) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value is related to the historical value of the site and its ability to stimulate a person to learn more. Our assessment is that Tarbert Conservation Area and its setting is of considerable educational significance due to the historic, social, archaeological, aesthetic, and environmental significance, however, this value could be strengthened if any future development included a more coherent interpretation strategy that considered all educational aspects of the village and setting. Page 177
Page 178
8.2.9 Recreational 8.2.10 Artistic (value as an amenity - engagement with the past may be primary or secondary reason for the visit) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value is concerned with the site as a source of recreation, where engagement with heritage may be the secondary reason for the visit. This is true for Tarbert Conservation Area. Our assessment is that Tarbert is a ‘stop’ on a longer journey for cyclists, tourists, and sailors. The harbour, marina, panoramic views and associated aesthetic values with walks, as well as being a stop on the Waverley Steamer, are arguably the most common reasons to visit the village. We anticipate that these reasons will remain so for years to come and that these important existing assets could be enhanced to increase recreational and educational values which in turn could increase economic value for the community. (value closely related to historical and educational value - may be related to the work of a particular person, artistic or architectural movement) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Limited Reasoning: This value is concerned with the relationship a site may have with the artistry of a particular person or movement. Although the site is of considerable aesthetic value, there is no evidence of a clear association with a particular artist or movement so we have assessed Tarbert Conservation Area as having limited artistic significance in relation to these values. Page 178
Page 179
8.2.11 Social 8.2.12 Commemorative (meaning that an asset has for individuals or groups because of association they have with it or events that occurred there) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value refers to social cohesion and group identity relating to events that have occurred at a site. This value is closely related to the considerable significance in the site’s historic and iconic significance in that the village brings together the past and present West of Scotland coastal communities as well as maritime and fishing communities. Events such as the annual Scottish Series Yacht Regatta and various festivals held throughout the year cement Tarbert as a social centre. (asset may or may not be located where the event took place) Location / Description: Old Pier - Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Some Reasoning: This value is associated with a place designated for commemoration. A memorial for two fisherman who lost their lives in a tragic accident on Loch Fyne when their fishing vessel capsized, is located at the Old Pier, to the far east of the Pier Road Character Area. As far as we understand there are no other commemorative sites within the Conservation Area. Page 179
Page 180
8.2.13 Symbolic / Iconic 8.2.14 Spiritual & Religious (value can be interpreted differently by different groups, linked with a sense of belonging and home) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value can be interpreted differently by different groups but is often linked to a sense of home, and of belonging. Tarbert is of considerable iconic significance to visitors and locals alike. Closely related to social value, the place is of considerable iconic significance to fishing and maritime communities as well as locals in terms of its long history and the unique relationship its built heritage has to the natural form of the landscape. This relationship is particularly distinctive when viewed from the water. (contribution to the spiritual or belief system of a cultural group) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Limited Reasoning: This value is associated with a place of religion or spirituality. Although Tarbert has an ancient history and long-established Christian heritage, as far as we understand there is no known spiritual and religious significance associated with Tarbert. Page 180
Page 181
8.2.15 Inspirational 8.2.16 Ecological (ambiguous to define but related to inspirational drive or emotions) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: This value can be difficult to define and can be personal in nature however it can be defined as a place that is ‘awe-inspiring’. In terms of making our assessment we have considered the unique aesthetic, scenic and panoramic, historical and iconic qualities of Tarbert to conclude that this is a place of considerable inspirational significance. There are pockets of the Conservation Area which demonstrate more of this value than others. For example the high ground around Tarbert Castle, the Old Pier on Pier Road and east on Garvel Road offer the most inspirational value due to their aesthetic quality and panoramic views of the natural landscape and beyond to the waters of the loch. (holistic value of living things with archaeology and history) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: The Ecological value should be assessed holistically and include archaeology and history as well the ecology of the place. When we consider the considerable historic value, potentially considerable archaeological value along with the areas of natural terrain, vegetation and waters of the East Loch, we assess that Tarbert Conservation Area has considerable Ecological value. Page 181
Page 182
8.2.17 Environmental 9.0 Summary of Assessment of Significance (holistic value of natural surroundings & landscape) Location / Description: Tarbert Conservation Area, Argyll & Bute Level of Significance: Considerable Reasoning: The environmental value should be assessed holistically taking natural surroundings and landscape into account. In this respect the setting of Tarbert Conservation Area is of considerable significance due to the diversity of the natural landscape, vegetation, and East Loch. There has been settlement around the area that is now the village of Tarbert since at least the first century which gives an indication towards the rich history of the area and ancient roots of the community which sustained itself from the loch and natural landscape which has in turn shaped the built heritage and industry of the village. The combination of natural beauty and heritage, along with its continued activity as a working fishing and maritime community, means that Tarbert has considerable significance over numerous values of significance, such as aesthetic, scenic, historical, archaeological, economic, educational, recreational, social, iconic, inspirational, ecological and environmental. Although each Character Area of the Conservation Area contributes to the overall value of the cultural significance of place, the Old Pier, Tarbert Castle Character Area and the Village Centre Character Area, as well as the modern Marina are key and offer the most opportunity for enhancement of existing assets. Our assessment is that despite there being only some significant architectural value, Tarbert Conservation Area is of considerable cultural significance meaning that it is of national importance to Scotland, in response to the combination of its distinctive features. Page 182
Page 183
10.0 Photographs: Top: Consultation board panels Bottom: Community Consultation event Community Engagement The local community need to be genuinely engaged in their environment and heritage in order that the integrity of the area’s historic character is celebrated, maintained, and managed in a way that supports a community to thrive for future generations. As part of the collation of information for this Character Appraisal and Management Plan, open consultation was held with the community. Key interests for the local community at this time include: • Housing • Heritage and Conservation • Amenities and Services • Community Spaces and Facilities • Regeneration and Development • Tourism and Economic Development • Environment and Safety • Equity and Community fairness A full report documenting the open consultation and key findings is attached to this document as an appendix. 11.0 Evaluation of Vulnerabilities & Opportunities With an understanding of the cultural significance of the area, it is important to identify and evaluate the vulnerabilities which may impact the integrity, in parallel with identifying opportunities to enhance the area and its heritage assets and in turn consider what benefits these improvements could bring to the community of Tarbert and the wider area. In order to analyse and make a holistic assessment of the conservation needs, this section of the document provides commentary on the following; • Summary of the general fabric condition of heritage assets • Vulnerabilities of heritage assets and Conservation Area • Opportunities of heritage assets and Conservation Area • Approach to Climate Change Page 183
Page 184
11.1 Summary of fabric condition of Heritage Assets 11.2 Evaluation of Vulnerabilities & Opportunities Generally, the building fabric of heritage assets within the Conservation area varies. Many buildings, particularly in the Village Centre Character Area, are beginning to deteriorate. The historic fabric and associated traditional features and materials are failing in some cases, and damp, rot and decay are beginning to take hold. It is important that action is taken to tackle these issues as soon as possible. The villas of Pier Road Character Area and Barmore Road (North) & Garvel Road Character Area are generally in better condition although there are examples of inappropriate alterations and repairs 11.2.1 Photograph: Brackenhill on Harbour Street is vacant and fallen into disrepair. Specific vulnerabilities to Tarbert Conservation Area are identified on the following pages. Need for Repair There are a number of historic buildings, especially within the Village Centre Character Area which have not been adequately maintained or have poor quality and or inappropriate repairs for a traditional building. This could be the result of the economic context / lack of investment, climate change and the impact of increased rainfall and extreme weather, lack of skills & knowledge. Included within this is the East Pier which is in poor condition. This is particularly significant as this is where the Waverly docks, bringing with it an important stream of income for the village. Page 184
Page 185
11.2.2 Photograph: Historic photograph of flooding on Barmore Road. DATE TBC Source: Tarbert Life 11.2.3 Photograph: Inappropriate cement repairs. Extreme weather / flooding Tarbert’s exposed location and proximity to the loch side makes it more vulnerable to the effects of extreme weather and flooding. Generally underground drainage and rainwater goods on buildings need to have capacity to cope with increased rainfall. More specifically to Tarbert the increased water run- off from the rock face is impacting the drainage of adjacent structures as well as causing loose rocks to fall. Increased water levels and rainfall also increase the risk of flooding from the loch. Inappropriate Repairs There are numerous historic buildings throughout the Conservation Area which have poor quality and or inappropriate repairs for a traditional building, which could cause more rapid decline of the historic fabric. This could be the result of the economic context / lack of investment or lack of skills & knowledge. This can lead to loss of visual character if there is a loss of traditional details and traditional materials. 11.2.4 Photographs: Top: large vacant shop unit in prominent position in the Village Centre. Bottom: Vacant hotel building in prominent position in the Village Centre. Vacant Properties Again, especially within the Village Centre Character Area, there are several vacant historic buildings, creating blank street frontages which in turn establishes a sense of economic downturn and low morale within the community. It also potentially creates future maintenance issues. Arguably the most significant vacant property is the Tarbert Hotel. The lack of activity within this prominent building at the heart of the village centre is detrimental to the appearance and character of the townscape as well as the economy. This is typical of the decline in local high streets nationally. Page 185
Page 186
11.2.5 Loss of Traditional Windows 11.2.7 Car Parking Photograph: Replacement window and door. 11.2.6 Photograph: historic poor quality development on Harbour Street. Loss of original sash and case windows and use of UPVC windows in many buildings within the Conservation Area threatens the integrity of the historic character and fabric of the buildings. This is likely the result of existing windows being draughty and expensive to repair, as well as lack of knowledge about appropriate replacement or window repairs. Poor quality development There are a number of examples of inappropriate development throughout the Conservation Area such as poor quality extensions. Photograph: Cars parked along Harbour Street. 11.2.8 Photograph: Bins on the pavement on Harbour Street. Although this may be considered a ‘necessary evil’, car parking along the edge of the harbour, within the Village Centre and on the verges of Pier Road, detracts from the historic character and natural beauty of the area. Furthermore, on Pier Road, these are not demarcated parking spaces and consequentially the verges are being eroded. Unsightly refuse storage Bins containing waste from many of commercial units in the Village Centre are located on the pavement. This not only causes an obstruction but creates clutter which is visually intrusive and detracts from the character. Page 186
Page 187
11.2.9 Photograph: Pier Road towards East Pier 11.2.10 Photograph: Shop frontage on Barmore Road Lack of pavements Lack of pavements from East Pier / Battery Point into the village centre No pavements along this route can become a hazard for pedestrians, especially when the Waverley Steamer docks at the East Pier Inappropriate shop frontages Several shops have inappropriate frontages and signage that detracts from the historic character of the Village Centre. 11.2.11 Photograph: Buildings to the rear of 1 Argyll Place. 11.2.12 Photograph: The Old Sailmakers on Garvel Road. Back Courts Dilapidated buildings within back courts. A number of the historic structures within the back courts are in very poor condition. These structures are significant to the character of the back courts and their historic use. Loss of Fishing Heritage Buildings such as the Old Harbour Master’s Office and Old Chandlery currently have no statutory protection despite their significant contribution to Tarbert’s fishing heritage and character of the Conservation Area. Page 187
Page 188
11.3 Opportunities for Heritage Assets and Tarbert Conservation Area 11.4 Approach to Climate Change Specific opportunities for Tarbert Conservation Area are identified as follows: • Coherent Interpretation & way finding through the village • Further archaeological investigation • Increased tourism and increased commerce in the Village Centre • Management of the Conservation Area’s assets, including education in traditional skills • Improvements to shop fronts and signage • Temporary improvements to blank frontages through artworks • Conservation and adaptive reuse of back court buildings • Partnerships and Community engagement to find new uses for vacant buildings – housing, storage, workshops etc / amenities and services • Increased recreational activities – cycle and walking routes • Celebration of fishing heritage through the protection of associated buildings The effects of Climate Change are a critical factor in the approach to the conservation, maintenance, and any adaptive re-use of heritage assets and the urban realm within Tarbert Conservation Area. The impact of any development on the environment of the area, as well as the impact of the physical effects of climate change, we now experience, on the heritage assets should both be analysed. In 2019, Historic Environment Scotland published a useful guide to the impacts of Climate Change on the built environment. Particularly relevant to Tarbert are the references to the specific impacts on Coastal Communities. A Guide To Climate Change Impacts | Historic Environment Scotland A Guide To Climate Change Impacts | Historic Environment Scotland Page 188
Page 189
11.4.1 Impact on Heritage Assets 11.4.2 Improvements to Heritage Assets In terms of the impact any development of heritage assets will have on the environment - as historic, traditionally constructed buildings, the following aspects should be considered: • The structure is currently carbon neutral as it is unoccupied however the energy efficient adaptive re-use and retrofit of our existing building stock is a key aspect to achieving carbon neutral. • Traditionally constructed buildings need to be treated differently from modern construction due to the breathability and permeability characteristics of traditional buildings with a holistic view of all the contributing elements. • Before any retro-fit proposals are installed, the condition of the building fabric must be good. • The insulation of the envelope of a traditional building must be assessed proportionally taking into account what thermal improvements can be made from a technical standard, ensuring the use of hygrothermal modelling is considered but also from an assessment of the impact that any installation of insulation would have on any historical significance. For example external wall render may not be appropriate due to the significance of the appearance of the historic stonework however if much of the historic interior is lost, internal wall insulation may be most appropriate. In terms of the impact of the physical effects of climate change, we now experience, Tarbert Conservation Area is at increased risk of extreme weather events due to its exposed location on the West coast of Scotland, meaning flooding mitigation may be relevant in some areas, replacement and repair details should be designed accordingly. For example this could include increasing the size of rainwater goods, appropriate lime pointing specification to protect the structures, flood mitigation measures and any plant or services relocated from lower levels. It is vital that building owners are educated about the impact of Climate Change and how to appropriately maintain and improve their historic properties. The following factors should also be considered in developing the improvement strategy for any heritage assets: • Fabric Repairs & Building Maintenance • Historic significance • Energy source – current consideration of renewable energy sources by Community Groups • Fabric Improvements by Insulating Building Envelope: • Ventilation / Airtightness • Hygrothermal Modelling • Operational Energy - Heating and Cooling • Carbon Emissions • Occupants well-being - thermal, air quality, day lighting, noise • Cost • Total Performance The following HES documents previously referenced are excellent in providing and introduction to the impacts of Climate Change and approach to retro-fit and energy efficiency in traditional buildings; A Guide To Climate Change Impacts | Historic Environment Scotland A Guide To Climate Change Impacts | Historic Environment Scotland Guide to Energy Retrofit of Traditional Buildings | Hist Env Scotland Guide to Energy Retrofit of Traditional Buildings | Hist Env Scotland Page 189
Page 190
12.0 Opportunities for Planning Action 13.0 Conservation Strategy We do not recommend any need for boundary refinement of the Tarbert Conservation Area. This should however be kept under review. The Conservation Strategy for a Conservation Area should be reflective of the established cultural values of the place and structured to suit the identified vulnerabilities and opportunities. It should provide a strategy beyond the immediate future and inform the framework of policies and action plan. Informed by the opportunities and vulnerabilities noted previously, the Conservation Strategy for Tarbert Conservation Area prioritises the following themes through the Policies and Action plan: • Retain local community support and engagement • Enhance and retain the unique character of Tarbert Conservation Area • Tackle the issue of absent landlords • Bring business and retail back into the Village Centre • Increase tourism through heritage interpretation and education (and outdoor activities) • Celebrate fishing heritage • Support the re-opening of Tarbert Hotel and Victoria Hotel • Affordable housing for locals and staff • Identification of most vulnerable buildings and prioritise necessary repair works within the Conservation Area which will make most impact • Take measures to educate and mitigate for Climate Change in the built environment – including thermal performance of heritage assets • Address inappropriate repairs and alterations • Education in traditional skills and maintenance of traditional buildings • Education in funding for fabric repairs • Further archaeological investigations Page 190
Page 191
14.0 Policies and Action Plan 14.1 Conservation Management Plan The articulation of significance and the evaluation of vulnerability and opportunities become the basis for a framework for policies, procedures, and future management to mitigate vulnerability and enhance the significance of the Conservation Area and heritage assets. Each vulnerability and opportunity is addressed within a policy. The policies and action plan are combined into a table to give clear guidance for next steps and priorities to safeguard the historic area. As development plans for the area progress, these sections can be expanded and split into separate sections with review of policies, actions and timescales. The actions will require effort from the community and local organisations. The following table schedules a framework of the policies, which vulnerability or opportunity they seek to address and what action is required to assist with these efforts. Page 191
Page 192
01 02 Policies Vulnerability / Opportunity Addressed Action Suggested Who / Timescale Use & Management of the Historic Area Retention of Tarbert Management & Review as per Planning Conservation Area Conservation statutory process Policy / to align designation to safeguard with changes its status in Local Development Plan policy Retention of all Listed Management & Review on a case-by- Historic Building designations to Conservation case basis Environment safeguard their status Scotland / as and when required Review of Listed Building designation to identified fishing heritage buildings Loss of Fishing Heritage buildings Celebration of fishing heritage through the protection of associated buildings Request HES review designation of the Old Harbour Master’s Office and the Old Chandlery. Historic Environment Scotland – Listings Team / to align with review timescales. Monitor / review buildings identified as ‘at risk’ Need for Repair Vacant Properties Request input from HES in absence of Buildings at Risk register. Historic Environment Scotland – BAR Team Adaptive re-use of heritage assets Dilapidated buildings within back courts Affordable housing Education programme / access of information & funding for building owners. Tarbert Regen Scheme – Training Programme Glendale has been identified as a Priority Building for repairs to create affordable housing. Guidance on building professionals specialising in Conservation. Encourage Conservation safeguards in Contracts and Tenders Inappropriate Repairs Skills shortage Guidance on building professionals specialising in Conservation. Guidance for building owners on how to engage a Contractor. Argyll and Bute Council - Housing Team / Tarbert Regen Scheme – Grants Programme Managing absent landlords and vacant properties Need for Repair Vacant Properties Council Housing Team to help set up Owners Associations. Council Empty Business Property Officer to support empty property owners find tenants and new businesses. Argyll and Bute Council - Housing and Empty Business Property Teams Temporary improvements to blank frontages through artworks Prioritise necessary repair works within the Conservation Area which will make most impact for grant funding. Management & Conservation Need for Repair Informed by this document. Consult with the community Tarbert Regen Scheme – Grants Programme Inappropriate repairs Grant application Specialist Conservation Consultant Records Development of online database of archival information and photographs. Interpretation development Archaeological Support Tarbert Life and Tarbert Castle Trust to digitise material. Tarbert Regen Scheme – Community Programme Tarbert Life Tarbert Castle Trust Create processes to work towards net zero. Extreme weather / flooding Utilise procurement route to support appropriate repair, use of sustainable materials and local labour. Argyll and Bute Council - Climate Team Page 192
Page 193
03 04 Improve shop frontages Inappropriate shop frontages and signage Increased tourism and increased commerce Skills training for local contractors Tarbert Regen Scheme – Grants, Training and Community Programmes Education programme / access of information & funding for building owners Improve thermal performance of heritage assets Energy retro-fit improvements Draughtproofing windows Education programme / access of information & funding for building owners Tarbert Regen Scheme – Grants and Training Programmes Skills training for local contractors Specialist Consultant Record building materials within Conservation Area. Inappropriate Repairs Materials Audit is being carried out. Specialist Consultant Skills shortage Interpretation development Conservation Principles and the Management of change Review of Management Plan and Conservation Area Appraisal Management & Conservation Align with review of LDP. Argyll and Bute Council - Planning Policy Poor quality modern / contemporary development Specialist Conservation Consultant Training of building owners and local contractors in conservation approach Inappropriate Repairs Retaining traditional windows and doors Education programme / access of information for building owners Tarbert Regen Scheme – Training Programme Skills shortage Skills training for local contractors Specialist Consultant / Contractor Improve refuse storage within the Conservation Area Unsightly refuse storage Review refuse storage protocol and bin sizes for the Conservation Area Argyll and Bute Council - Amenity Plan long term defence for future sea level rise Extreme weather / flooding Interrogate information on water levels and plan long term mitigation measures Tarbert Harbour Authority Specialist Consultant Encourage safer pedestrian route from ferry to village centre Management & Conservation Strategy to to create enhanced route. Argyll and Bute Council - Sustainable Transport Maintenance Management Encourage building owners to implement a planned maintenance regime for individual heritage assets and develop a long term plan which includes annual inspections. Need for repairs Inappropriate repairs Dilapidated buildings within back courts Education programme / access of information & funding for building owners. Guidance on building professionals specialising in Conservation. Tarbert Regen Scheme – Grants and Training Programmes Specialist Consultant / Contractor Use of grant contract conditions. Implement maintenance Need for repairs Review key Argyll and Bute checks for the properties of interest Council - MAKI Conservation Area. through the MAKI APAG Area Property Action Group. Disaster Management Plan a protocol for extreme weather events Extreme weather / flooding Argyll and Bute Council review and update policies. Argyll and Bute Council People Management Upgrading of orientation and signage Increased tourism and increased commerce Introduce a new orientation material Tarbert Regen Scheme Tarbert Harbour Authority Page 193
Page 194
05 06 Communication, Education & Interpretation Establish stakeholder forums and development of an engagement policy Management & Conservation Community engagement & support Events and education programmes that allow for wide engagement Local Area Partnership Improved dissemination of information regarding repairs and improvements to heritage assets Increased tourism and increased commerce Interpretation development Education programme / access of information & funding for building owners Tarbert Regen Scheme – Community Programme Community engagement & support Skills training for local contractors Improved heritage and interpretation strategy for the village Interpretation development Design of coherent Interpretation & way finding through the village and information point. Tarbert Regen Scheme Tarbert Harbour Authority Further archaeological investigation Management & Conservation Develop a plan for further investigation. Tarbert and Skipness Community Trust Interpretation development Consider impact of climate change on the uncovering of any buried archaeology. Specialist Consultant Involvement of local community in the future of heritage assets Community engagement & support Develop a plan for Partnerships and Community engagement to find new uses for vacant buildings – housing, storage, workshops etc / amenities and services. Tarbert Regen Scheme Tarbert and Skipness Community Trust Specialist Consultant Exploration of any further potential strategic partnerships Management & Conservation Interpretation development Community engagement & support Develop a plan to explore potential partners and make contact. Tarbert Regen Scheme Page 194
Page 195
14.2 Management & Maintenance Plan 15.0 Monitoring and Review Please refer to appendix for a checklist which can be adapted for use in the management and maintenance of individual heritage assets within the Conservation Area. Please note that a risk assessment should always be undertaken before carrying out any maintenance tasks. This checklist has been adapted from an Historic England example. The checklist can be expanded to include planned repair works as identified within the fabric repair surveys for each heritage asset. An indication of proposed priorities of actions to safeguard the integrity of the historic character of Tarbert Conservation Area are noted in the previous section however as a Conservation Plan is a working document it should be reviewed, expanded, and updated as any plans for the area are developed. As development plans for the area progress, we recommend that the Policies and Action Plan are expanded with review of policies, actions and timescales. Tarbert Conservation Area is covered by an Article 4 Direction, meaning permitted development rights may be affected or removed. Property owners are therefore encouraged to speak with their local planner prior to embarking on works to their building. Email: planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 195
Page 196
16.0 Appendices 16.1 Gazetteer of Heritage Assets 16.2 Community Engagement 16.3 Management & Maintenance Plan Checklist Page 196
Page 197
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL Committee Development & Economic Growth 18 November 2025 Development Management Performance Update – FQ2 2025/26 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ2 2025/26. 1.2 The attached document Appendix 1 provides an overview of the current demands upon the Development Management Service, its output during this period, the handling of the current backlog of casework, and the average time taken to determine planning applications. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that PPSL: (a) Review and agree the content of the report. 3.0 DETAIL & BACKGROUND 3.1 The performance of the Council’s Development Management Service has been significantly impacted by the legacy effect of the Covid Pandemic upon interruption to workflow and a subsequent increase in demand for regulatory activity relating to new development. This situation has been exacerbated by the Service having previously been down-sized in response to the longer-term wider financial pressures facing the Council combined with a number of long-term vacancies that proved extremely difficult to fill as a result of a national shortage of planning professionals. The determination of planning applications has also been impacted by the uncertainty created by a changing planning policy backdrop with the Scottish Government’s adoption of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in February 2023 with minimal transition arrangements having had a noticeable adverse impact on FQ4 2022/23 output as a result of a significant volume of casework requiring to be reassessed prior to its determination. The cumulative effect of these extraordinary pressures has given rise to a significant backlog of planning casework that continues to impact upon the ability of the Council to deliver the Development Management Service in an efficient and effective manner at this time, and impacts upon customer service. At FQ4 2022/23 the backlog of applications amounted to approximately 375 formal applications and 175 pre-application enquiries. 3.2 An Improvement Action Plan (IAP) was prepared in early 2023 in response to the Page 197 Agenda Item 8
Page 198
significant decrease in performance and wider issues impacting upon the resourcing of the service and its interactions with customers. The implementation of the IAP has ensured the delivery of additional capacity within the Development Management Service and along with this improvement initially in terms of output and more latterly improving trends are also now able to be identified in relation to the making of timely determinations. Building upon the foundation of the IAP, the Development Management Service Plan and Development Management Charter approved by PPSL on 18th September 2024 set out updated performance targets for the Service. These include a wider range of measures that seek to demonstrate the delivery of individual elements of the IAP and in addition to timeliness include measures which can be utilised to measure customer satisfaction, and staff welfare. 3.3 DEMAND: The Development Management Service receive approximately 2000 planning and related application case work items on an annual basis. The Development Management Service is resourced with the expectation that demand will be relatively constant and steady throughout the year. Whilst the volume of new submissions decreased by approximately 10% during 2020/21 they had returned to and exceeded pre-pandemic levels during 2021/22. Submission rates have subsequently been maintained at a high level and during 2022/23 were 5% up on pre-pandemic levels. Appendix 1, Sheet 1 shows that whilst submission rates continued to show an increase in demand during FQ2 2025/26 this has decreased slightly from the previous reporting period. 3.4 During the majority of FQ2 2025/26 the DM Service has operated with 2 vacant posts in addition to impacts arising from unplanned absence, including the impact of work related stress. One vacant post has been taken up since mid Sept. and is currently being trained on appropriate ways of working; the second vacant post has been successfully recruited however the new member of staff is unable to take up post until January 2026. To assist with capacity issues during this period one agency staff member has been retained to augment the MAKI team. 3.5 OUTPUT: Notwithstanding the reduced availability of professional officer resource within the DM Service during FQ2 output has improved from FQ1 and is broadly comparable to previous reporting periods. (Appendix 1, Sheet 2). It is anticipated that productivity will continue to improve once recruitment to vacant posts has been completed. It is however highlighted that additional vacancies have arisen during FQ3 which will further disrupt performance across the DM Service. These include the loss of ½ fte planning officer and 1fte enforcement officer in the BCHL team, and the departure of the MAKI Team Leader. 3.6 FQ2 has seen output from the DM Service keep pace with the number of applications validated during this period (Appendix 1, Sheet 3). A review of ‘live’ casework has however identified that whilst there has been a slight increase in the number of ‘legacy’ cases which are older than 1 year from validation remain ‘live’ and it is noted that these have increased from 90 to 91 items during FQ2 (Appendix 1, Sheet 4). 16 legacy items were determined during FQ2 however in the same period 17 additional items became legacy cases. Whilst the dip in productivity is as a result of reduced resource availability in the short-term it is a Page 198
Page 199
matter which gives some cause for concern in terms of immediate performance but also indicates that the Service has unresolved issues in relation to its resilience which will be closely monitored moving forward. 3.7 PRE-APPLICATION ENQUIRIES: Demand for pre-application advice remains high however Pre-application turnover is currently on track. Performance during FQ2 has met demand from new submissions. A commitment has been provided to review and improve the pre-application process, this will include the provision of enhanced information on the Council website to allow a greater proportion of customers to ‘self-serve’; development and roll out of a new pre-application service has been identified as a priority project. 3.8 ‘HOUSEHOLDER’ DEVELOPMENT: The performance of the Development Management Service is also measured in terms of the time taken to determine applications as it is recognised that failure to provide timely decisions can create uncertainty and be detrimental to the delivery of development across the Council area. Overall ‘time-taken’ measures have been skewed for sometime by the determination of a high volume of older ‘legacy’ applications that have accrued as part of the planning backlog. The increasing proportion of older applications being determined from FQ3 2022/23 onwards is identified in the bar graphs that provide a breakdown of application age within the average time measures (Appendix 1, Sheet 5 and Sheet 6) and demonstrate that ‘legacy’ applications are successfully being targeted for determination. The previous resolution of legacy householder items has underpinned the continuing improvement to underlying performance during FQ2. 3.9 This is particularly evident again within the ‘householder’ average time measure (Appendix 1, Sheet 5) where the overall reduction in householder ‘legacy’ items has allowed for improvement of the headline KPI from 10.4 weeks in FQ1 2025/26 to 7.9 weeks in FQ2 2025/26. It is also highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the national average for householder applications at FQ2 2024/25 was 8.7 weeks. 3.10 ‘LOCAL’ DEVELOPMENT: The determination of ‘legacy’ applications continued to have an adverse impact upon the average time taken measure applied to all other ‘local’ planning applications (Appendix 1, Sheet 6) where the determination of 16 ‘legacy’ applications during FQ2 cumulatively added 10.2 weeks to an average time measure that reports on the determination of 123 applications in total. During FQ2 88% of all other ‘local’ applications determined were less than 1 year old at the time of their determination and were determined in an average of 14.3 weeks (previously 88% in 17.9 weeks at FQ1 2025/26). 74% of the total were less than 6 months old and determined in 10.9 weeks on average (previously 63% in 10.2 weeks in FQ4 2024/25). The average time taken to determine ‘all other local applications’ has decreased slightly during FQ2 from 26.7 weeks to 24.5 weeks. It is again highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of Page 199
Page 200
the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. During FQ1 the Council determined a number of legacy applications which have impacted on the raw data relating to the average time period, including items that were delayed largely due to matters outwith the control of the Council. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the national average for local applications (excluding householder) at FQ2 2024/25 was 14.8 weeks. 3.11 CONCLUSIONS: It is highlighted that the indicator for determination of ‘householder’ applications has returned to within target for the first time since prior to the Covid pandemic and is a success that reflects the hardwork and determination of the Council’s DM team to recover performance and improve the quality of service delivery. 3.12 The determination of extant ‘legacy’ items does however continue to impact on ‘local’ application performance and will do so until such time as the remaining 91 items have been determined, and subject to appropriate intervention to prevent new ‘legacy’ items from accruing. 3.13 Analysis of the granular data shows that average time periods for determining all applications are in general continuing to reduce and that despite headline figures that might raise alarm, the majority of applications continue to be processed within much faster timescales that are showing improvement over time and which within the target of being within 10% of the national average. It is further noted that the improvement to performance during FQ2 has been achieved despite the reduced availability of officer resource. It will be a significant challenge to maintain this position in light of the further staff departures during FQ3 and in this context it is remains critical that the Council continues to ensure that the Development Management Service is adequately resourced to ensure that the recent improvements to performance are able to be sustained in the longer term. 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy None 4.2 Financial None 4.3 Legal None 4.4 HR None 4.5 Customer Service Requirement to manage customer expectations in the determination planning and related applications 4.6 Risk Failure to determine planning and related applications in efficient and effective manner would have potential to adversely impact upon the local economy, delivery of housing, and health and wellbeing of individuals. 4.7 Climate Change None 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty 4.9 Equalities – Protected Characteristics None Page 200
Page 201
4.10 Consumer Duty None 4.11 Island Communities None 4.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing None Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead: Cllr Kieron Green 31st October 2025 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – FQ2 2025/26 DM performance report Page 201
Page 202
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 203
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Statutory 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 411 2012 75.9% 1982 76.1% 1751 74.3% 1690 76.1% 826 75.3% Non-Statutory 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 25 56 2.1% 51 2.0% 87 3.7% 85 3.8% 48 4.4% PREAPP 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 107 582 22.0% 570 21.9% 520 22.1% 447 20.1% 223 20.3% Totals 651 685 674 607 643 679 594 631 549 584 602 549 542 529 554 543 2650 2603 2358 2222 1097 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework received. YTD as at 30th September 2025 data source = UNIform (Access queries) This tab provides information on the volume of DM case work received by financial quarter and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non- statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. FY25/26 YTD Split of Casework Received The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and confirms that demand for the determination of planning applications and other statutory activity of the Council as the Planning Authority remains high and relatively constant in its volume. End FQ2 25/26: Submission rates for FQ2 were within expected parameters. Commentary: FY24/25 New Casework Received FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 411 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 25 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 107 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Volume of New Casework Received PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 75.3% 4.4% 20.3% Split of Casework Received: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Appendix 1 Page 203
Page 204
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Statutory 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 407 1610 72.4% 1549 74.5% 1778 75.1% 1780 76.5% 777 73.8% Non-Statutory 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 22 46 2.1% 33 1.6% 75 3.2% 88 3.8% 43 4.1% PREAPP 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 568 25.5% 496 23.9% 513 21.7% 459 19.7% 233 22.1% 2224 2078 2366 2327 1053 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework closed. data source = UNIform (Access queries) YTD as at 30th September 2025 This tab provides detail on the volume of DM casework that has been closed and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non-statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 Casework Closed FY24/25 FY25/26 YTD Split of Casework Closed The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and demsonstrates that regardless of performance issues in respect of timeliness output remains high. There has been a notable improvement in productivity from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the increasing availability of officer resource and a more settled position following the significant disruption to workflow arising from NPF4 (FQ4 2022/23); this improving position has continued through subsequent reporting periods. End FQ2 25/26: Productivity during 2025/26 has reduced although this is not wholly unexpected as the Service has operated with vacancies during this period. Output during FQ 2 has improved from the previous period but still lags behind output from 24/25. Output continues to be impacted by vacancies and training of incoming staff members; performance is also impacted by the Summer holiday period which has seen reduced availability of officers. Commentary: 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 407 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 22 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Volume of Casework Closed PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 73.8% 4.1% 22.1% Split of Casework Closed: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Page 204
Page 205
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Closed 402 409 419 377 407 379 495 439 479 440 481 495 442 450 391 429 Validated 438 450 462 455 436 509 462 428 366 428 425 425 370 400 387 427 Difference (no) -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 2 This data is unfiltered - it shows the number of cases closed vs number of cases validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Casework Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new statutory and non-statutory casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of applications over the last rolling 16 financial quarters. Commentary: The graph shows that after 7 financial quarters (FQ2 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23) where output was lower than input, a backlog of 375 casework items were accumulated. During this period the DM Service were impacted by Covid restrictions/recovery and required to operate with a number of key vacancies due to a national shortage of planning professionals. Improving performance during 2023/24 has however reduced the backlog at the end of that period to 206 items. As significant improvement in performance is evident from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the resolution of key staffing issues within the Service, this improving position has been maintained moving forward from that point. End FQ2 25/26: Turnover during FQ2 to date has seen output match demand. -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 2 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Casework Turnover Rate Page 205
Page 206
Jan '24 Apr Jul Oct Jan '25 Apr Jul Oct Jan '26 Apr Jul Oct 1 - 2 Years 204 166 130 89 66 48 48 54 2+ Years 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 37 289 239 192 129 102 86 90 91 0 0 0 0 Estimated on 1st August 2024. Data sourced from Uniform on - or as near as possible to first working day of each financial quarter (from August 2024) Live Legacy Applications - quarterly progress: Argyll & Bute Council Commentary: This graph provides detail of the volume of 'legacy' cases remaining at the start of each Quarter since Jan 2024 (start FQ4 24/25). 'Legacy' cases are statutory items that remain undetermined more than 1 year after validation. These cases are generally items that have a high degree of complexity, can be contentious, or are not readily aligned with the requirements of the Development Plan. A significant number of 'legacy' items are items that have required substantial reworking or the provision of additional information from the applicant with the intention of addressing identified short-comings in the original submission, often requiring extensive input from planning officers. In some cases 'legacy' items are no longer being actively pursued by applicants but have not as yet been formally withdrawn. The determination of 'legacy' items has a significant adverse effect on average time performance measures and can also impact on allocation of staff resource and morale. Excellent progress has been made over the course of 2024/25 months in reducing the volume of legacy items from 239 to 86 items. End FQ2 25/26: During FQ2, 16 legacy items were detewrmined. However, during this period 17 new legacy items have accrued. 2025 to date has seen a period where efforts at addressing outstanding legacy cases has plateaued and gives rise to concern. 204 166 130 89 66 48 48 54 0 0 0 0 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 37 0 0 0 00 50 100 150 200 250 300 Jan '24 Apr Jul Oct Jan '25 Apr Jul Oct Jan '26 Apr Jul Oct Live Legacy Applications: Argyll & Bute 1 - 2 Years 2+ Years Page 206
Page 207
# Volumes FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Closed 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 100 Validated 118 153 159 137 117 140 117 132 120 130 115 92 103 116 117 100 Difference (no) -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 0 Number of PREAPP's closed vs number of PREAPP's validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) PREAPP Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new pre-application casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of pre- application enquiries over the last rolling 16 financial quarters. Commentary: The Graph shows the accumulation of a backlog of pre- application enquiries over the period FQ3 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23 during a period where the DM Service operated with a number of key vacancies and has experienced significant workflow disruption with the introduction of NPF4. It had previously been identified that the backlog amounted to around 180 applications; however following a review of the data input and accuracy of the data available (see detail of correction below) it has become evident that earlier reports included cases that were invalid and cases that had not been closed off proprerly in the back office system. The updated report confirms that the backlog of pre-application enquiries reached a maximum of just over 50 items; this position has seen significant improvement. End FQ2 25/26: FQ2 to date has seen output continuing to keep pace with demand. -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 0 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 PREAPP Turnover Rate Page 207
Page 208
# FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 < 6 months 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 8.1 7.9 < 6 months 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 66 < 1 year 10.8 13.3 12.4 12.4 12.0 17.3 17.8 15.4 14.6 18.3 12.4 12.6 12.6 9.8 8.7 7.9 6 months - 1 year 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 0 < 2 years 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 18.5 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 19.0 13.5 12.2 10.4 7.9 1 - 2 years 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 2 0 All Determined 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 10.4 7.9 Over 2 years 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 Total 94 88 76 76 86 62 59 83 75 75 60 75 59 68 62 66 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Householder" = Development Type N01. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' casework and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service from FQ1 2023/24 to move from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a high volume of 'legacy' applications continue to be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of performance across FQ4 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from reporting to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Peformance from FQ1 2024/25 has shown a marked improvement which demonstrates that the majority of householder applications are now being determined in much shorter time periods. End FQ2 25/26: During FQ2 to date Householder Applications have been determined in an average of 7.9 weeks (improvement from 10.4 weeks during FQ1 25/26); no legacy items have been determined during FQ2. Performance in the determination of householder applications is currently on track (DM Service Plan Target <10 weeks), National Average (latest data FQ2 24/25) was 8.7 weeks. Average Time to Determine Applications: Householder ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Householder - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Householder Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'householder' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 8.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 10.4 7.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Average no. of weeks to determine: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months < 1 year < 2 years All Determined 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 66 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 2 1 2 4 1 1 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 % Split: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 208
Page 209
# FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 < 6 months 11.1 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 10.2 10.9 < 6 months 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 92 < 1 year 13.5 13.4 14.5 14.0 18.0 19.2 19.3 18.7 18.8 21.0 19.0 16.3 17.0 15.6 17.9 14.3 6 months - 1 year 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 15 < 2 years 13.9 14.2 15.7 16.1 19.9 23.6 21.9 25.0 25.8 29.3 26.1 24.5 25.6 20.7 21.4 19.7 1 - 2 years 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 11 All Determined 18.5 16.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 26.7 24.5 Over 2 years 4 3 1 1 0 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 5 Total 136 141 132 136 153 105 129 156 155 144 163 176 155 147 128 123 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Local (excluding Householder)" = Development Types N02B/C, N03B/C, N04B/C, N05B/C, N06B/C, N07B/C, N08B/C, N09B/C, N10B/C. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service is to move during 2023/24 from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a higher volume of 'legacy' applications will be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of overall average time performance measures from FQ2 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from considerations to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework that has been determined. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Performance during FQ1 2024/25 has markedly improved and appears to indicate the start of an improving trend with decreasing time periods. End FQ2 25/26: FQ2 has seen 16 legacy applications cleared to date, with the effect of adding 10.2 weeks to the overall average time measure which now sits at 24.5 weeks (improvement from 26.7 weeks in FQ1 2025/26). It is also noted that some of the negative impact is attributed to delays to determination which were outwith the control of the planning authority and which will be adjusted in statutory reporting by the Scottish Government. During FQ2 the determination of non-legacy local applications were undertaken in an average of 14.3 weeks (improvement from 17.9 weeks in FQ1 25/26). It is however highlighted that a consistently high proportion of applications are continuing to being determined at an early stage with 74% of all local applications in FQ2 to date were newer items determined in an average time of 10.9 weeks (previously 62% in 10.4 weeks in FQ1 2025/26). Due to the impact of legacy items, the headline measure remains off-track (DM Service Plan Target <16 weeks). For the purpose of comparison, the National Average (latest data FQ2 24/25) was 14.8 weeks. Average Time to Determine Applications: Local (Excluding Householder) ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Local (Excluding Householder) - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Local (excluding Householder) Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'local' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 11.1 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 10.2 10.9 13.5 14.313.9 19.7 18.5 16.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 26.7 24.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 Ave no. of weeks to determine: Local (Excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 92 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 15 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 11 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 5 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FQ2 % Split: Local (excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 209
Page 210
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 211
Document is Restricted Page 211 Agenda Item 9NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 212
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 213
Document is Restricted Page 217 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 214
This page is intentionally left blank