Tarbert Harbour Authority: Extension of Existing Car Park to Form Mix of Car Parking and Boat Storage and Formation of Slipway: Land Adjacent to Marina Office, Garval Road, Tarbert (Ref: 25/00535/Pp)
Argyll and Bute Council · 16 September 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 16 September 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
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: 25/00535/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Tarbert Harbour Authority Proposal: Extension of existing carpark to form mix of car parking and boat storage and formation of slipway Site Address: Land Adjacent To Marina Office Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute 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 • Extension of existing carpark to form mix of car parking and boat storage • Formation of slipway (ii) Other specified operations • None (B) RECOMMENDATION: The proposal is recommended for approval of Planning Permission subject to conditions and reasons appended below. (C) CONSULTATIONS: ABC Roads and Infrastructure Services No objection subject to conditions appended below – 02.05.2025. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) No objection – 08.05.2025. Transport Scotland
Page 2
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 No objection – 09.05.2025. ABC Core path No response. ABC Flood Risk Assessor No objections, but recommend that site flood risk warning signage is erected - 18.07.2025. ABC Biodiversity Officer Requested an otter survey. Note that if any vegetation is to be removed, then this should be completed outwith the breeding bird season, or if not possible, a nesting bird check by a suitably qualified ecologist should be undertaken. Note a Habitat Regulations Appraisal Screening will be undertaken, regarding the Sound of Gigha SPA, and toolbox talks and pre-work checks will be undertaken. Suggests biodiversity enhancement opportunities – 12.08.2025. Following receipt of the otter survey, raised no objections but request pre-works check is carried out as a precautionary measure – 26.08.2025. ABC Environmental Health Raise no objections, subject to a condition relating to hours of construction/demolition – 26.08.2025. (D) HISTORY: The site and surrounding site have had a variety of planning history relating to the existing quay. Some of the previous applications are of direct and material relevance to the proposed development. 98/01389/OUT – Site for the erection of a supermarket with associated parking. Application Withdrawn: 14.01.1999 98/01646/CONAC – Demolition of boatyard buildings. Application Approved 03.02.1999 and occurred. 98/01842/DET – Erection of extension to toilet block. Application approved 01.02.1999 03/02290/DET – Infilling of foreshore and extension of toilet block approved 01.2004; infilling implemented but extension not undertaken. Application Approved: 28.01.2024 09/00473/ADV – Display of 9 flag advertisements upon individual 6 metre high flag poles. Application Approved: 26.06.2009 10/01871/PP – Change of use of land for siting of portacabin for use as chandlery for temporary period, approved 01.2011 for 3 years from the consent unless a renewal allowed, otherwise to be removed (see 14/01411/PP below).
Page 3
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 11/00857/PP – Change of Use of former boatyard site to form amenity area including other associated works (provision of modular Harbour Office) (Retrospective), approved 02.2012 for 3 years from the consent unless a renewal allowed, otherwise to be removed. 14/01411/PP – Variation of Condition 1 within 10/01871/PP, approved July 2014 which effectively allows that modular building to remain for further 2 years from that fresh consent. Application Approved: 23.07.2014 14/02554/PP – Demolition of existing washroom facilities, removal of existing harbour master and chandlery modular buildings, erection of new washroom facilities, harbour master accommodation/chandlery unit, workshop/storage building, formation of waste/recycling areas and associated works. Application Approved: 19.03.2015 15/00893/PP – Retention of modular building for a further 3 years. Application Approved: 25.06.2015 16/02284/NMA – Non Material Amendment to Planning Permission 14/02554/PP (Demolition of existing washroom facilities, removal of existing harbour master and chandlery modular buildings, erection of new washroom facilities, harbour master accommodation/chandlery unit, workshop/storage building, formation of waste/recycling areas and associated works.) Amendment to design and layout of shower and toilet building. Application Refused: 02.09.2016 (The recommendation considered the proposed development to be a material amendment to the approved plans and accordingly express planning permission is required.) 16/02577/PP – Erection of new shower and toilet facilities building. Application Approved: 29.11.2016 17/00073/PP – Retention of modular building for retail use as yacht and boat chandlery (This application seeks planning permission for retention and continued use of the building as chandlery for a temporary period until January 2019. The applicant advises that after a two-year period, a new toilet and shower block (for which planning permission has been granted) will have been built at the Harbour and the old toilet and shower block converted into offices and a permanent chandlery.) Application Approved: 31.03.2017 19/02428/PP – Formation of car park. Application Approved: 11.02.2020 20/01918/NMA – Non Material Amendment to Planning Permission reference 19/02428/PP (Formation of car park) alterations to levels and boundary treatments. Application Approved: 06.11.2020 20/01928/NMA – Non Material Amendment to planning application 19/02428/PP (Formation of car park) various alterations. Application Approved: 21.03.2022 21/00516/PP – Change of use of land to form public amenity area (viewpoint, seating and landscaping) Approved: 07.12.2021
Page 4
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 21/02139/PP – Installation of 12 bollards and 5 solar lamp stands. Approved: 01.03.2022 22/02507/PP – Erection of new activity hub, installation of new gangway, mooring pontoons and accessible launch and hoist, steps to access foreshore and alterations to foreshore. Application Approved: 30 Oct 2024 (E) PUBLICITY: Regulation 20 Advert (expiry date: 06.06.2025) Site Notice (expiry date: 29.05.2025) Neighbour notification (expiry date: 23.05.2025) (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: A total of 57 representations have been received for the application, of which 16 were in support, 1 neutral comments and 40 in objection of the proposal: Neutral comments received from: - • Karen Lupton Garcia – Flat 2 Finlaggan House Barmore Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute Support comments received from: - • Ian Johnstone – Bealach An Righ West Loch Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Mhairi MacDougall – The Bluebells Campbeltown Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • E M Scot – Barmore Farm Stonefield Argyll And Bute PA29 6YJ • Tarbert and Skipness Community Council – • Alan Moore – Laggan Mealdarroch Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Carron Tobin – Morna Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • D Watson – Cottage Dunmore Argyll And Bute PA29 6XZ • Dan Hunt – Ardyne Pier Road Tarbert PA29 6UF • Duncan Cunningham – A H Aon Barmore Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Frances Hardie – Rudha Loisgte Pier Road Tarbert PA29 6UG • Jane Gill – Flat 1 Tigh An T Sruthan Garval Road Tarbert • John Hardie – No Address Given • Peter Bates – Dunivaig Pier Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Scott Macdonald – 16a Hamilton terrace Lamlash KA278LR • Steve McColl – Middle Flat Islay House Garval Road Tarbert • Argyll And Isles Tourism Cooperative Objection comments received from: - • Karen McDougall – Duncarrach Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute
Page 5
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • John MacDougall – Ardglass Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Alastair Scott – Flat 5 Columba House Pier Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Marie Robertson No Address Given • Maggie Aykroyd – Glenmorven Barmore Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Fiona McTaggart – No Address Given • Alison MacNab – Torrisdale Barmore Road Tarbert PA29 6TT • Jack MacNab – Torrisdale Barmore Road Tarbert PA29 6TT • Stephen MacNab – Torrisdale Barmore Road Tarbert PA29 6TT • Ella MacNab – Torrisdale Barmore Road Tarbert PA29 6TT • Andrew Macdiarmid – The Moorings Pier Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Margaret A J MacDougall – Ardglass Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Dawn MacDougall – No Address Given • William McDougall – Duncarrach Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • K McTaggart – Islay House Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Tony Martin – No Address Given • Archibald Kerr Campbell – No Address Given • Stewart McLean – No Address Given • Jennifer McLean – No Address Given • Gordon McLean – No Address Given • Donald McLean – No Address Given • Scott Reid – No Address Given • John Martin – No Address Given • Craig Martin – No Address Given • Alexander Martin – No Address Given • Nicole Pate – 5 Bruce Hill Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6TG • Jacqueline Barker – 22 Market Place Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6AB • Arthur McFarlane – Mount Pleasant Lady Ileene Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute • Ferelyth-Bruce Lockhart – Glenmorven Barmore Road Tarbert PA29 6TT • James Blair – No Address Given • Veronica Blair – No Address Given • Neil Jackson – Willow Bank Tarbert PA29 6UE • Sally Hunter – No Address Given • Alexander R Martin – No Address Given • Bruce Harris – No Address Given • Janette Hunt – Dunolla Tarbert Argyll • John Scott – Islay House Garval Road Tarbert Argyll • Kristen Scott – Islay House Garval Road Tarbert Argyll • Janette Arrol, No Address Given • Josh De’ath, Dunncarrach, Garval Road Tarbet Argyll 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: As noted above, representations are published in full and are available to view on the Council’s website. In brief summary, respondents have raised the following points:
Page 6
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Neutral Comments: • Comment seeking the impact of the development on tidal flooding and whether a SEPA report can be viewed. Comment: Flood Maps are available to view on SEPA’s website. The matter of Flood Risk is assessed further in Appendix A. Support Comments: • The project will not only attract more people to the village but will create jobs and support the locals with enhanced access to water based recreational and commercial activities. • The project would aid water sports in the village and support the mental well-being of the community. • The facilities will provide safer access to the harbour for a range of activities which would provide many opportunities for all abilities, children and adults. • The proposal has the potential to boost local economy and investment by people of working age. • The proposal is supported by the Tarbert and Skipness Community Council as it is a much needed addition to the facility Tarbert Harbour with barely visible impact on the harbour and surrounding. • The slipway will provide a safe and efficient launching point and the only all-tide access to the water within the harbour with the boat lift allowing for all year round maintenance. • The proposed launch area will enhance and support marine tourism in the village while the extra winter boat storage will help the viability of the marina. • The development is sympathetic to the area and would help alleviate current parking pressures while improving accessibility for the public. • There is the need to support the marina to develop its services to meet changing demands and its viability as it competes with others around the Clyde. • Due to the nature of the proposed site which has a shoreline of rip-rap rock armour sitting on the natural rocky inter-tidal zone, it is not suitable habitat for otters, seals or other wildlife. Comment: The above representations are noted. Objection Comments: • Comment raised relative to the Planning Authority not undertaking the due process to neighbour notify owners of the land and associated shed (Sloc nam Bodach) sited immediately adjacent to the proposed site.
Page 7
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Comment: Notification and publication of the planning application has been undertaken in accordance with the relevant Regulations. • The proposed slip alignment appears to encroach over the Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) of the adjoining neighbouring land owner’s MHWS boundary. Comment: The applicant has confirmed the entire site is within its ownership and this is considered to represent a civil matter between the relevant parties. • The proposed slipway has the potential to result in a significant loss of amenity to the adjacent landowners and potential consequential loss of financial value. Comment: Loss of financial value is not a material planning consideration. • Concerns raised relative to the proposal due to the sparingly use of the existing facility (with the exception of major events in the village when they are used to full capacity) including its use for boat storage during winter. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight. • It appears there is a general consensus indicating that there is adequate availability of car parking facility in the village and that there is no demand for the proposed development. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight. • The existing carparking facility is hardly ever used to full capacity with the exception of major events in Tarbert. Furthermore, there are even fewer boats using the car park for winter storage. It is therefore viewed that increasing the existing capacity ill thought out for the immediate residents around the harbour. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight. The planning authority must assess the proposal on its own individual merits. • There are 3 existing redundant slipways in the inner harbour which could be put to use in addition to the one for launching kayaks and paddle boarders which are rarely used throughout the year. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight. The planning authority must assess the proposal on its own individual merits. • Concerns raised regarding the need for the new slipway in addition to the existing 3 redundant ones which could have been used in collaboration instead of the duplication. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight
Page 8
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • Concerns raised about the likelihood of visitors spending less time in the village due to the seasonal use of the proposal with little economic benefits this would bring where boats arrive with stocked up provisions. Comment: Economic benefits are associated with the proposed development, although in this case the nature of the benefits are not decisive given the lack of planning policy conflict/material planning harm identified in respect of the proposal. • Concerns raised regarding the ongoing pressures on the local hospitality industry and the need for upgrading the existing outdoor gym and the fisherman's quay and why the applicant is not looking to invest in these areas instead. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight. The planning authority must assess the proposal on its own individual merits. • Further concerns raised with respect to noise associated with boat storage, launching and boat repairs work at the premises. Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • A comment was made about there being an existing beaching and boat washing and bottom cleaning facility already on the commercial side of the harbour for larger yacht and fishing boats. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight. • Query raised regarding the previous plans for rebuilding the boatyard and the now derelict space in its place. Comment: The planning authority must assess the proposal on its own individual merits. • Concerns raised regarding the effect of the proposed development on the marine environment/stability of the seabed to accommodate the additional rocks to be deposited at the site to allow construction of the development. Comment: This is a consideration of limited weight, and it is noted that the proposal will also be required to obtain a marine licence. • Further concerns were raised in relation to the development's impact on tidal effect. Comment: Flood Risk is a matter assessed further in Appendix A. • A query was raised as to whether a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted relative to the proposed depositing of rocks at the site as part of the development. Comment: A Flood Risk Assessment has not been submitted. The matter if flood risk is assessed further in Appendix A.
Page 9
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • There are concerns that the proposal would cover up the last redundant jetty which is considered part of the Harbour's history and also obstruct the right of access to the shed owners. Comment: No jetty at the existing site is subject to any historical environment designation in planning terms. • Comment relating to the retention of Barken House jetty; the last remaining jetty which to most forms part of Tarbert’s history and reminds locals of the importance of ring fishing in shaping the village as is today. Comment: No jetty at the existing site is subject to any historical environment designation in planning terms. It is understood that the Barking House jetty is no longer safe or suitable for use but it will be conserved as existing below the make up of the land reclamation. • There are concerns of the development negatively impacting on the established visual amenity and the wider Conservation area as a result of it altering the natural harbour front setting. Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • Concerns raised regarding the proposed development's potential to set dangerous precedence for in the Conservation Area and coastal zones. Comment: The effect of the proposal on the conservation area and the character and appearance of the area are assessed further in Appendix A. In terms of precedent, each planning application must be judged on its own merits. • The proposal would make mockery of the conservation area as it will alter the natural shape of the harbour. Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • There is generally consensus of locals concerned with the proposed location of what is believed to industrialising the historic and natural harbour through recent redevelopment of the harbour which will be exacerbated by the current proposal. Comment: This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • There are concerns that the development would be restricted for private use by marina users only, regardless of the Harbour Authority’s claims. • The village needs more parking however, due to its location and no signs currently to direct visitors, the proposed development will be reserved for the selected few as private use only. Comment: The site would be open to the public and the submission sets out that the proposed parking will be freely available for everyone on a first come basis.
Page 10
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • Road safety concerns were raised in relation to increased traffic along Garval Road resulting from the proposal and its impact on other road users including school children. • The development has the potential to increase traffic along the road which is still used by children walking to school. Comment: The Roads department have raised no objected to the proposed development. This matter is assessed further in Appendix A. • Concern raised regarding the proposal encouraging the use of cars as opposed to sustainable means of transport including public transport, car sharing and active travel. Comment: The site is located in a settlement area that is served by public transport and accessible by non-vehicular modes of transport. • Concerns of the proposed development giving room for junk, trailers, vans, kayaks and caravan filling the space which is believed not to be required. Comment: The vehicular parking area could be used by a range of different vehicle types and boats, and it is not considered any harm to amenity nor character or appearance would arise as a result. Caravans are not proposed for storage at the site. • It was highlighted that the proposed development would not in itself resolve parking issues for neither cars nor boats and vessel owners should consider alternative areas such as the Clyde or Portavadie for winter storage. Comment: This proposal seeks to increase vehicular parking provision at the site. No objections have been received from the Roads Department nor Transport Scotland. The planning authority must assess the proposal on its own individual merits. • The proposal as well as the existing do not offer any disabled parking spaces. Comment: The site contains an existing disabled parking space next to the harbour office. The proposal would be required to provide 3 disabled parking spaces. The applicant has confirmed the intention to provide disabled parking spaces, and it is considered sufficient space exists on site to allow this requirement to be met. As such, this matter can be secured by planning condition. • Concerns raised relative to wildlife species at the site including scarves oyster catchers, otters, seals and seabirds. • There are concerns regarding wildlife – oysters and otters among other species. Comment: Following the submission of an Otter Survey, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development.
Page 11
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • Concerns regarding potential pollution risk including surface runoff containing oil, fuel and other contaminants potentially impacting water quality, noise, light and air quality resulting from the protracted period of operation. Comment: It is noted that the proposal relates to an extension of an existing use and that it would be subject to a separate marine licence. In respect of the planning application, Environmental Health have raised no objection to the proposed development. • Concerns raised regarding the operation of the proposed slipway posing threat to neighbouring residents mental and physical health. Comment: It is noted that the proposal relates to an extension of an existing use. In respect of the planning application, Environmental Health have raised no objection to the proposed development. The matter of compatibility with nearby land uses is assessed further in Appendix A • It has been pointed out that there are discrepancies in the submitted plans as Garval Terrace is wrongly indicated on the plan and existing Barking House jetty omitted from the plans on the website. Comment: It is noted Garvel Terrace is mislabelled on the submitted location plan. However, this is considered a minor matter which does not prevent determination of the planning application. It is not clear what existing jetty has been omitted. Nevertheless, the submitted plans indicate the proposed development that permission is sought for. • Health and safety concerns raised relative to the proposal’s intent to use the hoist and lift out area as an extra addition. Furthermore, the proposed hauling and repairing creel boats and yachts will become commercial with associated noise. Comment: It is noted that the proposal relates to an extension of an existing use. In respect of the planning application, Environmental Health have raised no objection to the proposed development. The matter of operational health and safety of the hoist and lift out area is a matter the applicant would be subject to via regulations outwith the planning process. (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
Page 12
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 A Design & Access Statement undertaken by Mott Macdonald and John Renshaw Architects. (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☐Yes ☒No Solely a small boat wash down treatment unit is proposed and no other buildings form part of the proposal. Sufficient information has been submitted to assess the proposed building. (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 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 10 – Coastal Development NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport
Page 13
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 21 – Play, Recreation and Sport NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism 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 Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 25 – Tourism Development Opportunities Policy 26 – Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 42 – Safeguarding Piers and Harbours Sustainable Communities Policy 49 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment
Page 14
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (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 Landscape Studies • ABC Economic Development Action Plan • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☒Yes ☐No The development falls under Paragraph 10(m) of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017: “Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works”. A Screening Opinion is attached as Appendix B for information. (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 Although the application has attracted a number of objections, it is considered that Members have sufficient information within the report and supporting documentation on public access to enable them to determine this application and properly evaluate the application against the statutory planning framework having regard to any other material planning considerations. It is therefore not considered by Officers’ that a pre-determination Hearing would add value to the determination process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Conservation Area • Article 4 Directions • Listed buildings • Scheduled Monuments • SEPA Flood Zones (River and Coastal)
Page 15
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • AFA – A3004 (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐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: A3004 – Tarbert Harbour and Conservation Area (Strategic; harbour improvements; regeneration and environmental improvements) (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This is an application for the extension of an existing carpark to form a mix of car parking and boat storage and formation of a slipway at an existing established marina site. The site is located at land adjacent to the Marina Office, at Garval Road, Tarbert. In terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP) 2 the application site is located within a Conservation Area, near listed buildings and Scheduled Monuments, and within the Settlement Area of Tarbert wherein Policy 01 has a general presumption in favour of sustainable development subject to criteria. In terms of the type of development proposed, LDP2 Policy 23 supports improved tourist facilities and accommodation subject
Page 16
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 to criteria. In addition, the site is identified within a Tourist Development Opportunities area and thus receives support from LDP2 Policy 25, subject to further assessment. The determining factors in the assessment of this application are considered to be whether this location is acceptable for the proposed development having regard to its effect on the townscape/landscape, historic environment, its compatibility with surrounding land uses/amenity of neighbouring land occupants, biodiversity effects, road network/parking, and flood risk. Officers respectfully note that there is a high volume of opposition to the proposed development alongside a proportion of support for the proposal. Overall, having assessed the proposal against the relevant provisions of the development plan as a whole and considering representations and consultee comments submitted, it is considered there are no substantive grounds to withhold permission, and it is recommended that planning permission should be granted, subject to the conditions set out below. This application would normally have been determined as a local application under the Council’s agreed scheme of delegation. However, the application has received a high volume of public representations. Therefore, to meet the requirement of the scheme of delegation, the planning application for the proposed development is before Members for determination. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission 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. (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: ☐Yes ☐No Author of Report: Tiwaah Antwi Date: 21.08.2025 Reviewing Officer: Bryn Bowker Date: 02.09.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth
Page 17
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00535/PP (Refer to Standard Conditions Document) 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 01.04.2025, 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 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0120 2 23.04.2025 Location Plan 1:750 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0121 2 23.04.2025 Existing Site Plan 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0122 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Plan (Winter Use) 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0130 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Plan (Summer Use - Car Parking) 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0131 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Plan (Mixed Use) 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0132 2 23.04.2025 Boat Recovery Positions 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0136 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Sections and Finished Floor Level (Section A- A and Section B-B) 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0135 2 23.04.2025 Proposed Site Sections and Finished Floor Level (Section C- C and Section D-D) 107065-MMD-01-XX- DR-C-0137 2 23.04.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1, for the purposes of clarity strictly no excavation shall take place below the public road / toe of embankment. Reason: In the interests of Road Safety. 3. PP – Road Condition Survey No development shall commence until a survey recording the condition of between the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road / U40 Shore Road (Garvel Road) junction and the application site has been undertaken and deposited with the Roads Authority.
Page 18
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The survey shall be undertaken to a specification which has first been agreed in writing with the Roads Authority and shall address the condition of the carriageway and verges and the condition of any bridges and culverts along the route. (Video recording would be beneficial). Reason: To establish the condition of the public road prior to construction works being commenced in order to provide a baseline against which the need for reinstatement works may be assessed. Note to Applicant: Damage arising from abnormal traffic associated with the construction of this development shall be reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Roads Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 either upon significant damage being identified during the course of construction works, or following a final inspection upon completion of construction works, whichever is the sooner. 4. PP – Construction Traffic Management Plan and Method Statement No development shall commence until a Traffic Management Plan and Method Statement has been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. The Traffic Management plan should include details of all materials, plant, equipment components and labour required during the construction works. The Plan shall also detail approved access routes, agreed operational practices (including avoidance of convoy movements, specifying conduct in use of passing places, identification of turning areas, reporting of verge damage) and shall provide for the provision of an appropriate Code of Practice to drivers of construction and delivery vehicles. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved Traffic Management Plan. Reason: To address abnormal traffic associated with the development in the interests of road safety. 5. PP - Parking and Turning As Shown The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. This shall include provision for 3 disabled parking spaces. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 6. PP – Basic Landscape/Surface/Boundary Treatment No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i) Location, design and materials any 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;
Page 19
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The development shall not be occupied until such time as the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. 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. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 7. PP – Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until a biodiversity statement has been 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) 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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Note to applicant: Your attention is drawn to the consultation comments of the Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer regarding suggested biodiversity enhancement measures. 8. No development, including demolition and/or construction works associated with the hereby approved development shall take place outside 08.00 hours to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays; 08.00 hours to 13.00 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Any variation to the hours of operation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any agreed change being implemented. Reason - To ensure that the residential amenities that occupiers can reasonably expect to enjoy are adequately protected. 9. No development shall commence until details of flood risk signage to be erected at the application site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Council’s Flood Risk Advisor. The duly approved details shall be implemented thereafter prior to commencement of first use of the hereby approved development.
Page 20
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Reason: In order to ensure appropriate mitigation for flood risk. 10. PP - Bird Breeding Season The removal of any vegetation or trees should be undertaken outside the nesting bird season (March-September) or alternatively a nesting bird survey should be undertaken to confirm no active nests are present. The survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority prior to the removal of any vegetation and trees. Reason: To protect breeding birds in the interests of nature conservation. 11. PP – Pre-commencement Survey No development or other work shall be carried out on the site until a pre- commencement survey for the presence of Otters has been carried out by an appropriately qualified person and has been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. In circumstances where species of interest are identified as being present, or at risk from construction works, the survey shall further provide suggested avoidance and or mitigation measures, including timing constraints, to address such presence or risk. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the measures identified in the duly approved scheme. 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. 12. PP – Surface Water Drainage – No further detail required Notwithstanding the provisions 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. 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. 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until the design and external construction materials to be used in the proposed boat wash water treatment unit shown on the hereby approved plan ref 107065-MMD-01-XX-DR- C-0130 Rev 2 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 14. PP – Construction Environmental Management Plan
Page 21
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved plan shall be fully adhered to throughout the construction period, and shall provide, amongst other things, for: - measures for controlling dust and preventing any spills; - specifications and a timetable of works for the construction phase of the development; - pollution prevention measures including management of plant, materials, chemicals and fuels, and washing/storage arrangements; - the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; - loading and unloading of plant and materials; - the erection and maintenance of any security hoarding/fencing; The submitted details shall have regard to SEPA's Guidelines for Pollution Prevention 5: Works and maintenance in or near water. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and the natural environment. ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • Your attention is drawn to the consultation comments of Roads and Amenity Services who have requested you provide a start date to them prior to any work starting on site. • In respect of the potential impact the proposal may have on cetaceans, you are advised to contact NatureScot to discuss any potential need for a European Protected Species Licence. In addition, you are advised to view the JNCC website below which contains guidance for appropriate protocol for minimising risk of injury to marine mammals from underwater noise: Marine mammals and noise mitigation | JNCC - Adviser to Government on Nature Conservation
Page 22
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00535/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. Planning permission is sought for an extension to an existing carpark to form mix of car parking and boat storage and formation of slipway at an existing established marina site. The site is located at land adjacent to the Marina Office, at Garval Road, Tarbert. The submission sets out that the new slipway provision would allow for the launching and recovery of leisure boats and small fishing vessels up to 25 ton using a submersible towed trailer. Additional vehicular parking and boat storage area is proposed, which the submission would represent an increase from 44 to 84 parking spaces and allow a maximum of 40 boats to be stored at site during winter. The additional space to facilitate the proposal would be created via reclaimed land. 1.2. Of relevance, 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. 1.3. NPF4 Policy 10 sets out development proposals in developed coastal areas will only be supported where the proposal: i. does not result in the need for further coastal protection measures taking into account future sea level change; or increase the risk to people of coastal flooding or coastal erosion, including through the loss of natural coastal defences including dune systems; and ii. is anticipated to be supportable in the long term, taking into account projected climate change. 1.4. NPF4 Policies 20 and Policy 21 sets out that development proposals for or incorporating new or enhanced blue infrastructure will be supported. Where appropriate, this will be an integral element of the design that responds to local circumstances. Design will take account of existing provision, new requirements and network to ensure the proposed blue infrastructure is of an appropriate type(s), quantity, quality and accessibility and is designed to be multi-functional and well-integrated into the overall proposals. With reference to NPF4 Policy 21g, Furthermore, development proposals that include enhances sports facilities will provide effective management and maintenance plans covering the funding arrangements for their long-term delivery and upkeep, and the party or parties responsible for these. 1.5. In summary and of relevance, NPF4 Policy 29 Rural Development at criterion c) sets out that development proposals in remote rural areas (within which Tarbet is located) will be supported where the proposal supports local employment; supports and sustains existing communities; and is suitable in terms of location, access, siting, design and environmental impact. 1.6. NPF4 Policy 30 Tourism criteria a) and b are also applicable to the principle of the development type proposed. Criterion a) supports extended tourist facilities in locations identified in the LDP, whilst criterion b) sets out a range of matters that tourism related development will take into account. This includes the contribution made to the local economy, compatibility with the surrounding area in terms of activity and the impact of increased visitors; impacts on communities; opportunities for sustainable travel, appropriate parking and traffic generation, and public transport; accessibility for disabled
Page 23
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 people; measures to minimise carbon emissions; and opportunities to provide access to the natural environment. 1.7. In terms of the adopted Argyl and Bute Local Development Plan(LDP) 2, LDP2 Policy 01 ‘Settlement Areas’ has a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure; is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies. 1.8. LDP2 Policy 23 supports improved tourist facilities and accommodation where the development is in a form scale and location which is consistent with its surroundings; and respect and integrate well with the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area. The site is also located within an area with Tourism Development Opportunities which LDP Policy 25 identifies as containing significant potential for the sustainable growth of the Argyll and Bute tourism industry. This policy goes onto state that priority will be given to previously developed sites, locations which are accessible by a variety of means of transport, where there is existing infrastructure capacity, and/or where a proposal will fill a recognised gap in the identified tourism network. 1.9. LDP2 Policy 28 sets out that proposals for marine and coastal developments will be supported where it can be demonstrated that there will be no significant adverse effects, directly, indirectly or cumulatively on coastal character, seascape or visual amenity; the natural, built and historic sites and their settings; commercial and recreational activity; amenity, arising from operational effects (waste, noise, light and odour); and public access (access to and along the coast will be maintained and enhanced wherever possible). 1.10. LDP2 Policy 42(a) - Safeguarding Piers, Ports and Harbours supports development within established commercial harbour, port and pier areas, where it has been clearly demonstrated that the proposal requires a pier, port or harbour side location and that the proposal would not adversely affect the commercial viability or efficient operation of the facility for marine related uses. In this regard, the proposed development will be located on a brownfield site and would be associated to the already established and operational commercial harbour within the town centre and Conservation area of Tarbert. The site also sits within an “Area for Action” (AFA) A3004 designated for strategic harbour improvements; regeneration and environmental improvements, and flood protection scheme around Tarbert Harbour and Conservation Area. 1.11. The application site and its immediate surrounding’s relevant planning history includes a number of alterations and consents over the years - all of which have been aimed towards implementing the delivery programme set out for AFA A3004. These include works relative to the demolition of previous derelict buildings around the marina and reinstatement of the area with some landscaping to create suitable public realm/amenity areas; and formation of a safer pedestrian footpath linking the pontoons to the town centre, Castle and the Kintyre Way. In recent planning history, permissions have also been granted for the redevelopment of the parking area adjacent to the harbour Quay with some works to the Fish Quay itself. The current proposal though a small-scale redevelopment opportunity, will also be delivered towards the aims of AFA A3004. 1.12. The proposal seeks to enhance the existing car parking and facilities at the harbour which in turn will enhance the blue infrastructure and access to the natural environment. It is aimed to serve as a multi-functional amenity to the public and locals alike. Under normal circumstances, such development would be required to satisfy the provisions of NPF4 Policies 20 and 21 as it relates to submission of a suitable management and
Page 24
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 maintenance plan. In this case however, given that the proposal forms part of Tarbert Harbour Authority’s land and managed as part of the wider marina, it is not considered that a further management and maintenance plan would be necessary. 1.13. The proposed expansion of facilities at the marina waterfront, is considered to increase opportunities for activities for visitors and the public which will have social and economic benefits for the local community and businesses. The proposal would further provide improved tourist facilities available around the harbour. Subject to the detailed assessment that follows, the proposal receives in principle support from the LDP2 and NPF4 policies summarised above. 2. Local Character and Appearance and Historic Environment 2.1. The application site falls outwith any national or local landscape designation. Even so, it is not considered that the proposed development would have material detrimental effect on the established natural and built environment within its immediate surrounding. The proposed site includes land within an established commercial quay located in Tarbert’s town centre and along the marina where it falls within the designated Area for Action (AFA) A3004 for strategic harbour improvements; regeneration and environmental improvements, and flood protection scheme. The site is situated on the shore side to the north east of the Tarbert Harbour Authority’s office building where it is accessed via Garval Road. Currently, there is an existing car park on site and a private pontoon sited adjacent to the site. This pontoon is believed to be associated with a private garden ground for a neighbouring residential property and concerns have been raised relative to the proposed development's impact on accessing this pontoon. Having carefully considered and reviewed details of proposal and information provided by the owners of the said pontoon, it is concluded that the proposal would not affect accessibility of the pontoon in question neither will it interfere with the neighbours' land ownership as initially indicated. In any event, this is considered a civil matter. 2.2. The wider site area consists of commercial and established mix-use development with residential properties within its immediate environment. The site is located within the Tarbert’s Conservation Area and within proximity to a number of category B and C listed buildings as well as two Scheduled Ancient Monuments(SAMs) - SM276 Tarbert Castle and SM3410 Tarbert, medieval burgh & environs. Notwithstanding, the proposal would comprise an extension to an existing operational marina where it is compatible with the immediate surrounding land uses. With regard to the historic assets and their settings as identified, it is considered that the proposal would not adversely affect any of the historic assets and their settings with the potential exception of outwards views from the SAMs which initially would temporarily overlook the lighter concrete finish of the slipway. However, this would naturally weather overtime and integrate into the marina waterfront and thus the setting of the SAMs would be preserved. 2.3. Having regard for its overall siting, scale, massing and design, the proposed development is deemed acceptable in that it would not have any detrimental visual impact on the established land/townscape, local character and appearance nor the historic assets and their associated settings. The dimensions and siting of a proposed boat wash water treatment unit are set out on the proposed site plan. However detailed elevations have not been provided as the applicant has had issues identifying a local supplier. However noting the minor scale of development proposed and its location, it is considered the materials and elevations of the treatment unit could be secured by planning condition. When in operation, the view of additional vehicles and boats at the site would not be unusual nor be industrial in appearance. As noted above, it is acknowledged that upon completion, the development, particularly the slipway, would have a concrete finish which would initially visually stand out. However, as noted above, this would weather over time
Page 25
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 and blend in with its immediate surrounding and the wider marina. Subject to a landscape condition to secure further details of finishing materials, the proposed development would not detract from its setting within the wider landscape/townscape (including the noted historic environment assets). 2.4. In view of the above, the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area nor the historic environment and would be consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 7 and 14 and ABC LDP2 Policies 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 19. 3. Compatibility with surrounding land uses 3.1. The proposed development forms parts of a commercial working port within Tarbert's town centre where a mix-use development is established. The wider site area consists of a further mixture of commercial activities and residential properties, some of which would generate moderate levels of noises and light pollution to the immediate harbour. Representations submitted have raised concerns with the proposed development resulting in noise and light pollution. In this regard while the proposed development, especially the boat repairs services, is expected to generate some level of noise during service delivery, noting the existing use and scale of development proposed, it is not considered that this would be excessive to warrant refusal of the proposed development. With regard to light pollution, it is considered that the proposed would not result in a significant increase of light at the premises which would have a materially detrimental effect on the wider surrounding. Furthermore, environmental health have been consulted and have raised no objection to the proposed development, subject to a condition to restrict hours of construction/demolition. Overall, it is considered that the proposed extension to an established marina use would not have a materially harmful effect on the amenity of nearby occupants. Therefore, the proposed development is considered compatible with surrounding land uses and thus is deemed consistent with the relevant the related requirements of NPF4 policies 14, 23, 30b, LDP2 policies 01, 05, 08 which are of most relevance to this matter. 4. Biodiversity. 4.1. As set out above the existing application site and the area affected is mainly an existing car park but there is an area of vegetation – native shrubs such as gorse between the existing car park and the loch that will be removed, and works will be at the loch shore. Concerns have been raised by representations regarding the development's potential interference with wildlife at the site. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer requested the submission of an otter survey and following receipt of the otter survey, no objections have been raised by the Biodiversity Officer but the response requests that pre-work checks are carried out as a precautionary measure. A suitably worded planning condition can achieve this measure. 4.2. The Biodiversity Officer also noted that if any vegetation is to be removed, then this should be completed outwith the breeding bird season, or if this is not possible, then a nesting bird check by a suitably qualified ecologist should be undertaken. The matter of breeding birds can be addressed by a suitably worded planning condition. The biodiversity officer also noted that a Habitat Regulations Appraisal Screening will be undertaken regarding the Sound of Gigha SPA and toolbox talks and pre-work checks will be undertaken. Officers note that the Sound of Gigha SPA is some distance away from the proposed development and consider that it is not likely the proposal would have a significant effect on this designation. Biodiversity enhancement opportunities are suggested by the Biodiversity Officer, and such measures could be secured by planning condition.
Page 26
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 5. The Marine Works EIA Screening Opinion issued by Scottish Government states that the development has the potential to cause disturbance and possible injury to cetaceans, and notes that a European Protected Species licence might be required. The Screening Opinion advises mitigation should be implemented to minimise the risk of injury and best practice should be followed to minimise disturbance. NatureScot as part of the Screening Opinion response to Scottish Government identify the JNCC website for having guidance for appropriate protocol for minimising risk of injury to marine mammals from underwater noise. A Marine Licence will be required for the proposed works, and it is considered that marine consenting regime would be appropriate to address this matter. Nonetheless, the JNCC guidance will be highlighted as an informative note to the applicant. 5.1. Noting the coastal location of the application site and to ensure appropriate measures are in place during the construction period, it is considered necessary to impose a planning condition to secure the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan to safeguard the natural environment and biodiversity interests. 5.2. Subject to planning conditions, there are therefore no material concerns relative to the proposal that would justify withholding planning permission on ecological grounds. On this basis, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of NPF4 policies 3 and 4, and ABC LDP2 Policies 77 and 79. 6. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. 6.1. The proposal seeks to rely on an existing access but it would result in an increase of the existing parking facility available around the harbour with seasonal alternative boat parking and repairs services on site. The proposed augmentation of the existing facility's capacity is intended to accommodate increasing demand, which in part is associated with some of the ongoing improvement works at the harbour, allowing for improved service provision. Due to its location within the settlement of Tarbert, the development would be accessible via various modes of transport including active travel. The existing facility to be extended also has a number of electric vehicles charging points installed and while the application does not state specifically whether this element of the development would be increased, it is considered that this is acceptable in that the existing numbers are commensurate to the proposed development. Road safety concerns have been raised by representations. However, both Transport Scotland and the Roads & Infrastructure Services have been consulted on the application and have raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions proposed by the Roads & Infrastructure Services which are deemed necessary and therefore appended below. On this basis, the proposal raises no material roads related concerns and is considered acceptable and compliant with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 and ABC LDP2 Policies 32, 34, 35 and 40. 7. Flood Risk 7.1. It is noted concern has been raised in relation to flood risk. The proposal is of a water compatible nature and will be established as an ancillary extension of the existing marina facility. The Council’s Flood Risk Advisor was consulted on the application and has raised no objection or concerns to the proposal but recommend the use of flood risk signage. This is a matter that can be secured by planning condition. It is therefore considered that the proposed development conforms to the relevant requirements of NPF4 Policy 22 and ABC LDP Policy 55 as it relates to flooding. 8. Other Policy Matters
Page 27
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 8.1. The proposal will continue to use the existing waste storage and collection arrangements on site which are in line with the Council’s Waste Strategy and as such is consistent with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 12 and ABC LDP2 policy 63 as it relates to waste management on site. 8.2. The proposed development has been assessed against all of the above potential constraints and designations and has been considered to raise no issues or concerns other than the aforementioned with associated proposed conditions where necessary. 8.3. Based on the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with relevant policies of NPF4 and the adopted Argyll and Bute LDP2 and there are no other material considerations that would justify withholding planning permission.
Page 28
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 APPENDIX B TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2017 _________________________________________________________________________ SCREENING OPINION OF ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL _________________________________________________________________________ 25/00535/PP - Screening opinion for extension of existing carpark to form mix of car parking and boat storage and formation of slipway, at Land Adjacent To Marina Office Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute Under the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Town And Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (the Regulations), a screening request has been made to Argyll & Bute Council as planning authority in respect of the development summarised above. Development failing within Schedule 1 of the Regulations will always be EIA development for which an EIAR is required to accompany an application for development consent. The development proposed in this case is Schedule 2 development by virtue of being identified in Paragraph 10(m) as coastal work. Development falling within Schedule 2 (as in this case) may be EIA development if the development proposed is assessed to be ‘likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location’. In making such a decision, regard shall be had to the ‘selection criteria’ set out in Schedule 3, namely the characteristics of the development, the location of the development and the characteristics of the potential impact. The planning authority has also had regard to the Screening Opinion issued by Scottish Government dated 27.08.25, wherein under The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017, it was concluded that the proposed development did not constitute EIA development. Characteristics of the development – This section considers criteria such as the size of development, cumulation with other existing or approved developments, use of natural resources, production of waste, pollution and nuisances, the risk of major accidents and / or disasters which are relevant to the project concerned as well as risks to human health. The proposed development comprises an extension of existing carpark to form mix of car parking and boat storage and the formation of slipway to an existing established marina coastal use. Land would be reclaimed to allow space for the proposed development, utilising rock revetment and infill. Based on the available evidence, no significant concerns are raised in relation to waste production, risk of major accidents and or disasters or risk to human health. Location of the development – The location of the development needs to be considered in terms of its environmental sensitivity. The application site falls out with any national or local landscape designation but it is located within the Tarbert’s Conservation area and within close proximity to a number of category B and C listed buildings as well as two Scheduled Ancient Monuments(SAMs) - SM276 Tarbert Castle and SM3410 Tarbert, medieval burgh & environs. However, subject to a landscaping condition, it is not envisaged the proposed development would result in a significant effect in cultural heritage terms.
Page 29
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 It is noted that the Sound of Gigha SPA is some distance away from the proposed development, and it is considered it is not likely that the proposal would have a significant effect on this designation. Following receipt of an otter survey, no objections have been raised by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer but the response requests that a pre-work check is carried out as a precautionary measure. A suitably worded planning condition can achieve this. The Marine Works EIA Screening Opinion issued by Scottish Government states that the development has the potential to cause disturbance and possible injury to cetaceans, and notes that a European Protected Species licence might be required. The EIA Screening Opinion advises mitigation should be implemented to minimise the risk of injury and best practice should be followed to minimise disturbance. NatureScot as part of the Screening Opinion response to Scottish Government identify the JNCC website for having guidance for appropriate protocol for minimising risk of injury to marine mammals from underwater noise. This will be highlighted as an informative note to the applicant. Based on the available evidence, no significant concerns are raised in relation to the environmental sensitivity of the location of the development. Characteristics of the potential impact – The potential impacts of the proposal on the site and surrounding area have to be assessed in terms of the extent, transboundary nature, magnitude and complexity, probability and duration, frequency and reversibility. In terms of the magnitude and spatial extent of the impact, the effect of the development would be localised and would not extend over a large geographical area and would not affect a large numbers of people. It is considered that the characteristics of the potential impact are not of a magnitude or spatial extent nor transboundary in the nature of its impact to conclude that there would be likely significant effects associated with the proposal. It is also not considered there is any undue complexity of impact associated with the proposal that could not be fully understood. In conjunction with other existing or approved development in the area, it is not considered the proposal would likely lead to any significant effects. Screening Opinion - Taking account of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 and the advice contained within the associated Circular 1/2017, it is not considered that the proposal would have a likely significant effect and therefore an EIA is not required. Bryn Bowker Area Team Leader (Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay) on behalf of Argyll & Bute Council 1st September 2025