Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 9 September 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 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 20 August 2025 at 11.00 am (Pages 3 - 12) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 August 2025 at 2.30 pm (Pages 13 - 18) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 August 2025 at 3.30 pm (Pages 19 - 20) 4. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SECTION 36 CONSULTATION: CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF BALLIEMEANOCH PUMPED STORAGE HYDRO SCHEME: 4.4 KM TO THE SOUTH OF PORTSONACHAN AND 9 KM NORTHWEST OF INVERARAY (REF: 24/01324/S36) (Pages 21 - 56) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 5. 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) (Pages 57 - 88) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
6. SAULMORE BAY RESORT LTD: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR MARINA; BOATYARD INCLUDING ANCILLARY OFFICES (CLASS 4) AND STORE (CLASS 6); LEISURE RESORT INCLUDING BUILDINGS FOR OFFICES (CLASS 4), LEISURE USE, GYM AND SPA (CLASS 11), RETAIL (CLASS 1A), RESTAURANTS AND CAFES (CLASS 3), AND RELATED USES; HOLIDAY LODGES (SUI GENERIS); AND OTHER HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION TYPES (SUI GENERIS); NEW PARKING AREAS, ROADS, WALKWAYS, AND CYCLEWAYS; DRAINAGE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE; AND LANDSCAPING AND BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT: LAND AT CAMUS BRUAICH RUAIDHE, CONNEL (REF: 25/01210/PAN) (Pages 89 - 96) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. UPDATE ON PLANNING PERMISSION NON-DETERMINATION APPEAL: LAND TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST OF TAYNUILT SUBSTATION, TAYNUILT (Pages 97 - 100) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 8. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ1 2025/26 (Pages 101 - 114) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth E1 9. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - REFERENCE 15/00051/ENAMEN (Pages 115 - 128) Report by Head of 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, 20 AUGUST 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader Ronnie Hogg, Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTE The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 June 2025 was approved as a correct record. 4. MR LORNE MARSHALL: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO FORM TIMBER STORAGE AND FIREWOOD PROCESSING AREA (PART RETROSPECTIVE): NA TRI GLEANN, SANDBANK, DUNOON (REF: 24/01882/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. This retrospective application was made following planning enforcement action and seeks to regularise the change of use of land (previously used as a horse arena) for the storage of timber and processing of firewood. The site is located within the ‘countryside zone’ as designated by the Local Development Plan. The proposal has been the subject to 27 representations comprising 14 objections, including one from a local Member, one neutral comment, and 12 supporting comments. Concern has been raised regarding a variety of matters including impacts on residential amenity, road safety, public access, landscape and visual amenity, and biodiversity. No objections have been received from statutory or non-statutory consultees. Notwithstanding the concerns raised by third parties, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan (NPF4 and LDP2) and there are no other material considerations identified to indicate that planning permission should be withheld. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: 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 15.10.2024; 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 3 - 05.11.2024 Site Plan *2 of 3 - 20.05.2025 Timber Building Floor Plan & Elevations *3 of 3 - 23.10.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Operations: Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development hereby permitted, including the log splitting and chainsaw use, shall be restricted to the specified operational hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays (excluding site transportation – see Condition 3); on any day excepting Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays when the use shall not be permitted at all. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area. 3. Operations: Site Transportation (delivery and distribution of wood) associated with the hereby approved development shall only be undertaken during the hours 08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. There will be no Site Transportation on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the area from noise. 4. Operations: Chainsaw activity associated with the hereby approved development will take place behind ‘Herras Fencing’ deployed in a ‘V’ shape with 20db acoustic wading attached to mitigate any possible noise pollution. Chainsaw activity will be restricted to 60 minutes per working week and shall only take place within the specified operational hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays. The applicant will keep a logbook of such instances which will be available to the Planning Authority for inspection upon request. Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the area from noise. Page 4
Page 5
5. Operations: Prior to any operations re-commencing relating to this proposed development, 2m high solid entrance gates with 20db acoustic wading attached shall be installed. The gates will open inwards. The gates will remain closed when plant and machinery is in operation including the off-loading and loading of timber from or to vehicles. Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the area from noise by mitigating any possible noise pollution and to preserve visual amenity. 6. Storage: External storage associated with the hereby approved development shall only take place on land designated for such a purpose. • Log piles of timber to be processed will not exceed 3m in height. • Stacks of bagged processed timber will not exceed 3m in height. Reason: In order to protect the visual amenity of the locale. 7. Lighting: No external illumination of the building or land within the application site shall be permitted without the prior written consent of the Planning Authority. Any request for the approval of details pursuant to this condition should include the number, location, height and intensity of the proposed lighting units, which shall be positioned such as to avoid light spillage beyond the area intended to be illuminated. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the locale. 8. Visibility Splays: Prior to the operations or deliveries commencing for the hereby approved development, the junction of the existing access with the public road shall have visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 136 metres to point Y from the centre line of the existing access. The visibility splays shall be maintained thereafter clear 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. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 9. Landscaping / Biodiversity Enhancement: No development (including any tree felling/works or land engineering works or any associated operations) 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) Location of proposed soft landscape works including tree and shrub species and sizes; v) Details of any existing trees / hedge to be removed; vi) Details of the location and canopy spread of existing trees / hedge to be retained as part of the development including a programme of measures for the protection of trees /hedge during construction and operation of the firewood processing and timber storage business which shall include fencing at least one metre beyond the canopy spread of each tree in accordance with BS 5837:2012 “Trees in Relation to Construction and Development”; and Page 5
Page 6
vii) 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. 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. 10. Sustainable Drainage System: 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. The post-development run-off rate should not exceed the pre-development run-off rate at the site. 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 – www.sepa.org.uk 11. Waste Management: The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the on-site waste/recyclable storage areas have been provided and are secured for the life the development other than in the event of any revision thereof being approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to accord with the principles of sustainable waste management within Policy 12 of NPF4. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 August 2025, submitted) 5. GB WIND FARM LIMITED: ERECTION OF A 120 METRE HIGH METEOROLOGICAL MAST FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF UP TO 4 YEARS: LAND APPROXIMATELY 2.1 KM NORTHWEST OF DUNOON AND 1.5KM SOUTHWEST OF SANDBANK (REF: 24/01926/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1. The proposal is for the erection of a 120m meteorological mast to be sited for a Page 6
Page 7
temporary period of up to 4 years to gather data in relation to the viability or not of a potential wind farm. 105 objections have been received in respect of this proposal, including one from a local Member. One person submitted a representation in support of this proposal. Matters raised relate to temporary consents, visual impact, lighting of masts, impact on residents, construction of access road, peat, and inaccurate information. A late objection has also been received from Kilmun Community Council. No objections have been received from the other statutory and non-statutory consultees. 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 Section 25 of the Act. It was recommended that planning permission be approved subject to the planning conditions recommended within the report of handling. For the avoidance of doubt the granting of temporary permission for the erection of this wind monitoring mast would not in any manner imply that the site was considered suitable for a wind farm. Motion To hold a site visit and discretionary pre-determination hearing. Moved by Councillor Amanda Hampsey, seconded by Councillor Jan Brown. Amendment To grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Brown Councillor Armour Councillor Hampsey Councillor Blair Councillor Howard Councillor Forrest Councillor Wallace Councillor Green Councillor Hardie Councillor Irvine Councillor Kain The Amendment was moved by 7 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Page 7
Page 8
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 22.10.2024; 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 5 23.10.2024 Site Plan *2 of 5 23.10.2024 Access Route Plan *3 of 5 24.10.2024 Outline Arrangement of Met Mast *4 of 5 24.10.2024 Peat Depth Figure *5 of 5 31.04.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Duration Restriction The permission shall be for a period of 48 months from the commencement of the development, the date of which shall be notified in writing to the Planning Authority. Within three months of the end of the 48 month period, unless a further planning application is submitted and approved, the meteorological mast and associated equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land reinstated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: To define the permission and in order to protect the amenity of the locale. 3. Construction Details The wind monitoring mast shall not be erected until full details of ground anchors including mast base, foundations and any fencing to protect both livestock and mast and full reinstatement details and safety and operating maintenance details, have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Reason: To allow the Planning Authority to consider these aspects in detail and in the interest of site restoration. 4. Bird Flight Diverters Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1 above, bird flight diverters (BFDs) with stops or clamps shall be fitted to all guy wires at even intervals of 5 metres from the ground upwards. Page 8
Page 9
The mast thereafter shall be monitored and maintained annually for its lifetime to ensure diverters remain in place and as necessary, missing diverters be replaced. Reason: In the interests of natural heritage, in order to reduce the potential for avian casualties. 5. Aviation Lighting Prior to commencing construction of any meteorological masts, or deploying any construction equipment or temporal structure 50 metres or more in height (above ground level) the undertaker must submit an aviation lighting scheme for the approval of Argyll and Bute Council in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence defining how the development will be lit throughout its life to maintain civil and military aviation safety requirements as determined necessary for aviation safety by the Ministry of Defence. This should set out: a) details of any construction equipment and temporal structures with a total height of 50 metres or greater (above ground level) that will be deployed during the construction of the meteorological mast and details of any aviation warning lighting that they will be fitted with; and b) the location and height of the meteorological mast identifying the position of the lights on the mast; the type(s) of lights that will be fitted and the performance specification(s) of the lighting type(s) to be used. Thereafter, the undertaker must exhibit such lights as detailed in the approved aviation lighting scheme. The lighting installed will remain operational for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To maintain aviation safety. 6. Aviation Charting and Safety Management The undertaker must notify the Ministry of Defence, at least 14 days prior to the commencement of the works, in writing of the following information: a) the date of the commencement of the erection of meteorological masts; b) the maximum height of any construction equipment to be used in the erection of the meteorological masts; c) the date any meteorological masts are brought into use; d) the latitude and longitude and maximum heights of any anemometer mast(s). The Ministry of Defence must be notified of any changes to the information supplied in accordance with these requirements and of the completion of the construction of the development. Reason: To maintain aviation safety. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 August 2025 and supplementary report number 1 dated 15 August 2025, submitted) 6. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT WEST AILEY, SHORE ROAD, COVE Consideration was given to a report recommending a Tree Preservation Order be confirmed on a Chestnut tree in the garden of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove. Page 9
Page 10
Decision The Committee agreed that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed in accordance with Section 160 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for area marked on plan attached to the report (Appendix 1). (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 20 August 2025, submitted) 7. UPDATE ON SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SECTION 36 CONSULTATIONS A report providing an update on responses sent to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit on Section 36 Consultations in respect of Killearn Wind Farm and Balliemeanoch Pump Storage Hydro was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted: 1. the submission of these two holding objections to the Energy Consents Unit to safeguard the Council’s position; and 2. that Officers would present a report to PPSL at a future date on each of these S36 applications for their views, as and when it was competent to do so. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 August 2025, submitted) 8. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS A report summarising recent decisions by Scottish Ministers following appeals in respect of High Hedge application reference 24/01562/HH at High Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, and Enforcement Notice served in relation to a garden fence at Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 20 August 2025, submitted) The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 9. PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION ORDER The Committee gave consideration to a request for a Tree Preservation Order. Page 10
Page 11
Decision The Committee agreed to the recommendations detailed in the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 20 August 2025, submitted) Page 11
Page 12
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 13
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Conor Morris, Applicant Jason Stedman, Applicant’s work colleague Sergeant Ben Rusden, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe, Dougie Philand and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF STREET TRADERS LICENCE (C MORRIS, CAMPBELTOWN) 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 Conor Morris joined the meeting by telephone along with Jason Stedman. Police Scotland also opted to proceed by way of audio call and Sergeant Ben Rusden joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of their application. APPLICANT Mr Jason Stedman, spoke on Mr Morris’ behalf. Mr Stedman advised that Mr Morris suffered from ADHD and had difficulties in his younger life which led to his convictions. He advised that Mr Morris had now gained employment and that his employer and co-workers were very supportive of him and thought he was an asset to the business. He said that this was a turning point in Mr Morris’ life; to gain meaningful employment, contribute to the community, and put his convictions behind him and move on. He said that the job would give Mr Morris responsibility, and this would be important to him. He explained that Mr Morris had difficulty in understanding how to fill out the Page 13 Agenda Item 3b
Page 14
application form correctly and had nowhere to go for help with this, which resulted in him omitting to declare his conviction. He said his employer’s first language was not English and he could not help with the application form. He advised that the mistakes made in the application form were down to a misunderstanding and he asked the Committee to take this into consideration and process the application so that the business could help Mr Morris grow in himself. POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant Rusden referred to a letter dated 30 June 2025 from the Divisional Commander which advised of a conviction, in respect of 3 offences, that the Applicant had failed to declare on his application form. He explained the circumstances in respect of these offences which led to Mr Morris being convicted at Court on 29 January 2025. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Hampsey sought and received confirmation from Mr Stedman that Mr Morris’ boss had been unable to help Mr Morris fill out his application because there was a language barrier, with English not being his first language, and because he had no time due to being extremely busy with the business. Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that Police Scotland had submitted their letter of representation as the Applicant had failed to disclose his conviction on his application form and they wanted the Committee to be aware of the offences. Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that Mr Morris was 16 years old at the time of the offences. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Stedman that Mr Morris was applying for a Street Trader’s Licence for his current employment. He advised that the business was looking to grow with vans sited in multiple locations. They were looking to invest in Mr Morris so that he could manage food and trade from one of these vans. He advised that Mr Morris was currently employed under supervision. He explained that Mr Morris needed to have his own licence. Councillor Brown asked Mr Morris if he could explain his circumstances at the time of the offences. Mr Morris advised that there were reasons for his past mistakes. He said he was drinking heavily and that it was not a good time for him. He said that he had changed a lot since then. He advised that he did not drink anymore and that he had cut communication with most of his friends. He said that he only spoke to his family now and that all he had was this job. Councillor Blair asked Sergeant Rusden if Mr Morris was complying with the terms and conditions of his conviction set by the Sheriff. Sergeant Rusden said that there was nothing to present that he has not been complying. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Legal Manager that applications have been submitted with errors by others in the past. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Morris that he was aware of how lucky he was to have employers and colleagues that were supporting him. Mr Morris advised that if his application was processed, he would be very excited as he enjoyed Page 14
Page 15
cooking. He confirmed that he would stay away from trouble which, he said, he had been doing for a while now. Mr Morris confirmed that he understood the responsibility that would be placed on him by his employer. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from the Legal Manager that to work in the van, which had a licence at the moment, Mr Morris would still need his own licence to operate, even as just a worker. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr Stedman that Mr Morris would operate from the Kinloch Park/Kinloch Green area of Campbeltown. He said it would be just the one location and that Mr Morris would not be required to move the van. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that none of the victims of the offences were from Campbeltown. Councillor Brown referred to Mr Stedman advising earlier that there were plans to work in various locations across Campbeltown, but he was now saying that Mr Morris would work at the one location. Mr Stedman explained that Mr Morris would work in one location and that the business was looking to expand with more vans which would lead to more workers each with their own street trader’s licence. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Legal Manager that if it was determined that an application was intentionally completed falsely it would be for the Police to determine whether any action should be taken. Sergeant Rusden confirmed this to be correct. He advised that in this instance if the Police had felt this was a malicious act to deceive then they would have commenced criminal proceedings. He advised that there was a need to take a balance of probability and in this case, they felt it was appropriate to just inform the Committee of the offences. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr Stedman that Mr Morris was diagnosed with ADHD at a young age and at that time he received medication. He said that over the past few years he had not been medicated and was now getting to a place to try and get his ADHD under control. Councillor Brown asked if it was a mutual decision by Mr Morris and his doctor to come off the medication. Mr Stedman said that his condition was not managed correctly during his childhood and that led to his ADHD getting worse. He said it was now being managed correctly with the support of his colleagues. Councillor Hampsey sought and received confirmation from Mr Morris that he agreed with everything that Mr Stedman had said on his behalf. Councillor Hampsey sought and received confirmation from Mr Stedman that Mr Morris would continue to receive support once he was operating his own van, both in person and over the telephone. He confirmed that Mr Morris would not be left to struggle. He advised that all the other employees would receive the same level of support if required. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden advised that the facts presented related to 3 offences which took place between October and November 2023. No actual harm had come to the victims and that Page 15
Page 16
it was down to the Committee to have an opinion on those offences and the explanation why they happened given by the Applicant. Applicant Mr Stedman said that there was no intention to mislead on the application form and that it was simply due to Mr Morris’ ADHD and that he was now being supported with that. He said that the offences happened when Mr Morris was very young and when he did not have a good support network. He advised that this was Mr Morris’ opportunity to be part of the community and take on responsibility and move forward with his life and that he would have support with that. Mr Morris accepted that the application was filled out incorrectly and that it was simply because he did not know how to fill it out. He asked the Committee to consider this and give him a chance. When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Brown said that she was all for giving someone a chance, but she was a bit concerned about this application. She said she was not concerned about Mr Morris, but she was concerned about his employment. She said she was concerned about Mr Morris’ ADHD being controlled by his employer rather than a medical professional. Councillor Blair said he would be at ease with giving Mr Morris this opportunity as he thought that he had a support network now which may be tweaked in the future with perhaps a visit to the doctor, and that he hoped this would be taken on board. He noted that the employers were taking on responsibility and that they wanted to see the business grow. He said that if Mr Morris was given this opportunity and worked hard then this would be a good move for everyone. He confirmed that he supported this application. Councillor Hardie said he shared Councillor Blair’s opinions. He said that he thought Mr Morris had turned a corner and that he would be happy to support this application. Councillor Green said he did not in any way want to diminish the offences committed. He said he thought they had been dealt with appropriately and reflected Mr Morris’ young age. Looking at public safety he noted that Mr Morris had shown he could recognise the factors that had affected his life and that it was positive that he was looking at having a review of his medication. He did not think the Committee could expect anything like that in terms of anything formal. He advised that with the support network indicated that would be provided, reflecting on Mr Morris’ age at the time of the offences, and taking account of his ADHD, which could make impulsivity more likely, he thought it would be appropriate to give Mr Morris a second chance. He said that he also took account of the fact that the victims were not in the area and so it was not likely that any additional harm would come to them by giving this licence. He confirmed that he would be supportive of granting the licence. Councillor Brown said she was not disagreeing to the granting of the licence. Page 16
Page 17
DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Street Trader’s Licence to Mr Morris and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 17
Page 18
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 19
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Andrew Kain Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Fiona Howard, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe, Dougie Philand and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A TAXI CAR LICENCE (C LENEHAN, 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 written submission and a copy of this was contained within Supplementary Agenda Pack 1 for this meeting. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Committee Manager to read out the Applicant’s written submission. APPLICANT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSION Having gained over 10 years of experience as a professional driver within the Transport & Logistics sector, I am confident in my ability to provide safe, efficient, and courteous taxi services to the public. In-depth knowledge of local routes and traffic patterns in Oban & Lorn and surrounding areas, ensures punctual and smooth journeys for passengers. I am committed to upholding the highest standards of customer care, ensuring a pleasant and secure experience for all. I am a dedicated and safety-focused driver, possessing a clean driving record and a strong understanding of the Highway Code and local traffic regulations. I am also familiar with vehicle maintenance checks, ensuring the vehicle is always in optimal condition for service. With extensive knowledge of the local area, including landmarks, points of interest, and efficient routes, I can navigate effectively even without reliance on technology. I am a patient and adaptable driver, able to manage various situations and respond calmly to Page 19 Agenda Item 3c
Page 20
unexpected circumstances on the road. I am committed to providing a reliable and professional service to the community of Oban, Lorn and surrounding areas. I am applying for a taxi car licence to provide a taxi for 6 passengers. There is a need in Oban for a 6 seater car as there are less than a handful, currently on the road operating. I will be working alongside Lorn Taxis, Oban to provide the taxi service. If I was granted a Taxi car licence, this will give me a full time job working around the hours that I can to provide for my children and family. DEBATE Councillor Hampsey referred to her own personal experience of the Oban area and advised that normally she left her car further up town when catching a ferry for herself and her family. She said that having a very large family she found it impossible to get a taxi that seated that many people. She said that she would agree that there was definitely a need in the Oban and Lorn area for a larger taxi and that this would be good asset to the area. Councillor Hardie said that based on the Applicant’s written submission he would like to grant this licence. Councillor Green advised that he was likeminded. He referred to the current taxi survey and advised that as it was 6 years old at this point, he was not inclined to give it substantial weight. He confirmed that he would be happy to grant the licence based on the Applicant’s statement and the provision of taxi for larger groups. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Lenehan and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 20
Page 21
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Consultation Report relative to a S36 Application to the Scottish Ministers under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 in respect of Balliemeanoch Pump Hydro Storage Proposals Reference No: 24/01324/S36 ECU Reference: ECU00003444 Planning Hierarchy: Section 36 Consultation (Major Development) Applicant: Scottish Gov Consultation Proposal: Construction and operation of Balliemeanoch pumped storage hydro scheme. Site Address: 4.4 Km To The South Of Portsonachan And 9 Km Northwest Of Inveraray Members are requested to note that as the Planning Authority are only a Consultee in respect of S36 Electricity Act proposals. The website containing all application documents, external consultee responses and third party representations can be found on the Energy Consents Unit website, operated on behalf of the Scottish Ministers at the link below: Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details Clicking the documents tab will open a page where the application documents, consultation responses and third part representations/objections can be viewed. 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 Section 36 Consent Construction of a Pump Storage Hydro-Electric Scheme comprising the following. Above Ground : Construction of; • Headpond - comprises the upper reservoir and Embankments • Headpond inlet / outlet structure • Borrow Pits • Switching Station • Tailpond Inlet/Outlet structure • Development Site Access • Access tracks - both temporary and permanent, • Two lower gate houses • Temporary and Permanent Compounds (construction and operation) • Tunnel access, • New access to the Development Site from the public transport network, Page 21 Agenda Item 4
Page 22
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Construction of marine jetty with removable platform, (part retained structure) in Loch Fyne. Below Ground: Construction of; • High and Low Pressure Tunnels • Spillway and scour pipes • Surge shafts • Power cavern/house • Transformer cavern • Main inlet valve cavern • Emergency Egress Tunnel • Access Tunnel to powerhouse • Power cable tunnel to transformer • Ventilation tunnel to power cavern (ii) Other specified operations • Temporary Cofferdam in Loch Awe • Temporary B840 Realignment • Potential temporary diversion of Public Footpaths • Site Clearance works • Compound set up works • Installation of portable generators on site where grid connection not possible • Provision of temporary worker welfare building • Provision of temporary on site workers accommodation Members are requested to note that the application details were amended by the applicant following objections being received, mainly expressing concerns relating to the alteration to the water levels of Loch Awe and consequent potential adverse flooding impacts on roads, houses and businesses. There were also objections to the original larger proposal from SEPA and NatureScot related to the impact of the development on peat and habitat. The applicant therefore has revised and reduced the scale of the development. The current application has been amended from the original scheme and now constitutes the application details before the Council with the original EIAR now supported by additional environmental evaluation contained within the FEI documentation. The current application differs from the original application in the following main ways. Summary of Key Changes from original application proposals • The volume of water used has reduced from approximately 52 million cubic meters to approximately 15million cubic meters due to reduction in the size of the proposed upper head pond storage area. • The changes in water level on Loch Awe, which can result from the operation of the Development has reduced from 1.2 m to 0.4 m. • The rate at which the loch water levels can change as a result of the operation of the Development has also been reduced to around 28 mm per hour (a little over 1 inch), with the duration of operation reduced from over 30 hours to 15 hours. Page 22
Page 23
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Embankment 1 reduced in height from 95 m to 63 m (above existing ground level). Embankment 2 has reduced in height from 13 m to 9 m. • The installed generation capacity has been reduced to accommodate the above operational changes, to a maximum of 900 MW (from 1500 MW). • Borrow pit (for dam construction material) reduced from 10,678,050 m3 to 2,432,660 m3 with reduced peat excavation from 642,450 m3 to 140,560 m3. • The proposed upper limit at which the project can operate has also been brought down by 470 mm, meaning when the loch is naturally very high and rising because of heavy rain, the project will not add further water back into the loch. Instead, any extracted water will remain in the headpond under those conditions, thereby reducing the maximum level to which the loch will rise. • The proposals will also alter the amount of permanent and temporary access tracks associated with alterations to the overall layout of surface development as follows to increase the amount of permanent access track due to the alterations proposed to the permanent compound locations. The total length of new access tracks (excavated) has increased by approximately 2,500 m, to a total length of 6,650 m due to the following; 1) Relocation of PC09 (Permanent Compound) 2) The re-classification of the proposed access track to the north of the headpond from temporary to permanent, to provide access to the relocated PC17, PC18 and PC19. (Note, access to PC17 – PC19 was previously proposed across the crest of Embankment 1. Due to topographical constraints in the reevaluated location, this is no longer feasible, hence the re-classification of the temporary access track to permanent) (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that no objection be raised to the revised S36 proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as are discussed and summarised within this report and other consultation responses, and that the current “holding objection” lodged with the Scottish Ministers be withdrawn. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Internal Consultation Responses received A&B Biodiversity Officer : Dated 27.11.24 & 04.09.25 No objection A&B Env Protection Dated 22.01.25 No objection A&B Flooding/Drainage Dated 05.11.24 No objection A&B Marine Policy Dated 04/09/25 No objection External consultee responses to revised scheme material to recommendation SEPA Dated 03.09.25 Partial Objection (Peat) NatureScot Dated 28.08. 25 No Objection HES Dated 18.07.25 No Objection Transport Scotland Dated 28.07.25 No Objection Page 23
Page 24
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Forestry Dated 28.07.25 No Objection MOD Dated 09.07.25 No Objection NATS Dated 01.07.25 No Objection Mowi Dated 19.08.25 No Objection Please note all external consultee responses to both the original and revised proposals are available on the ECU website (as they are the determining authority to whom these are sent). They can be viewed at the following link; Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details (D) HISTORY: Yes The following applications have been submitted in the last 5 years which overlap with or are contained within the red line boundary of the development site. 23/00795/S36 - Section 36 Consultation for erection of 13 turbines each up to a maximum of 180 m in height to blade tip. Land approximately 6 km northwest of Inveraray and 4.5 km east of Dalavich Argyll and Bute. 23/0291/ELCNOT - Proposed new 33 kV overhead line. Land approximately 757 metres southeast of Oaklea East Lochaweside Dalmally Argyll and Bute. LPA response to notification - no comment 22/00094/PP - Erection of 25-metre-high steel lattice tower and associated ancillary works. Land southeast of Balliemeanoch Farm East Lochaweside Argyll and Bute. Application approved 20 July 2022. 22/01298/S37 - Installation of 275 Kv overhead line connection. Land south of Dalmally and east of Cladich Argyll and Bute. Approved by Scottish Ministers following PLI. 21/01534/PNWAY - Formation of forest track. Three Bridges Forest Inveraray Argyll and Bute. Prior approval is not required – 25 August 2021. (E) PUBLICITY: N/A. S36 Application to ECU (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Y As this is a S36 proposal representations must be sent to the ECU and not the Planning Authority. A link to these objections and supporting submissions is set out below Scottish Government - Energy Consents Unit - Application Details The following 21 parties have raised objections to the original proposals as follows, • Simon & Heather Chapple (redacted e-mail address) • Robert Wilson (redacted e-mail address) • Peter Ross, Gar Bothan, Stronmilchan, PA33 1AS • Molly Drysdale, Gar Bothan, Stronmilchan, PA33 1AS • Helen Gray, (redacted e-mail address) • Martin O’keeffe Blarghour By Dalmally Page 24
Page 25
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Isobel Bird, (redacted e-mail address) • Elspeth MacKinnon, Hillcrest, Balephetrish, Isle of Tiree • David Bird (redacted e-mail address) • Janet Buchanan, Innishail Cottage Ardbrecknish • John Brown (redacted e-mail address) • Andrew Hill, Keepers Cottage, Eredine, Dalmally • Graeme Mackechnie, Dalmally Golf Club Captain, Old Sawmill Dalmally • Dr Gareth Young , (redacted e-mail address) • Pamela Gibson Allt Bhan Cottage, Portsonachan • Ishbel Livingstone, Craigmore, Stronmillichan • Alastair McLaren, Craig Farm Dalmally • Tracy Boyles (sectretary) Portsonschan Village Hall • Lucy Sumison ( Regional Manager NFU Scotland), Ingleson, Newbridge • Catriona O’Keefe, Blairgour Farm, by Dalmally • Buglife Scotland – Unit 4, Beta Centre Stirling • RSPB -South Scotland Regional Office These objectors raised the following main issues in respect of the initial scheme. • Adverse impacts caused by increased flooding risk associated with water discharge rates from proposal on land, property and businesses. • Adverse Impact on farmland from flooding • Potential additional erosion through changes in water levels • Adverse impacts on Loch Awe and Strath of Orchy from operation of scheme • Potential adverse impact on amenity pursuits on Loch Awe • Potential adverse impacts upon wildlife, habitat, ornithology and riparian habitat • Adverse impact on Biodiversity through loss of trees, nesting areas for birds around lochside. • Operating parameters and controls have not been provided in a satisfactory manner • No risk analysis of dam failure provided • Local roads and bridges would be undermined and damaged due to likely flooding associated with development. • Passing placed required if B840 if it is to be to be used by workers • There is a lack of overall control with existing schemes all operating independently. • Inadequate invertebrate surveys of aquatic macroinvertebrates in Loch Awe and Lochan Airigh • Inappropriate assessment of aquatic macroinvertebrates for Loch Awe, Lochan Airigh and Loch Fyne • Adverse impacts on aquatic macroinvertebrates in Loch Awe, Lochan Airligh and associated watercourses • Insufficient mitigation for aquatic invertebrates • Inadequate assessment of impacts on terrestrial invertebrates • Impacts on priority peatland habitats and insufficient mitigation • The scheme will lead to an overall loss of biodiversity and should be refused. The Scottish Government have recognised the nature emergency and have committed to halt biodiversity loss and be nature positive by 2030. It is unclear how these commitments will be achieved if developments are permitted without adequate assessment and that will result in the loss of invertebrate diversity and abundance with no/inadequate mitigation proposed. • Impact on birds and protected species. 11 representations in support of the original proposals have been submitted from Page 25
Page 26
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Tristan Care: Shared Voice. • Caroline Mcvean: Shared Voice • Stuart McQeen: Shared Voice • Andrew Primrose: Shared Voice • Linda Morris: Shared Voice • Timothy Davies: Shared Voice • Heather Anderson: Shared Voice • Harley Tedham: Shared Voice • Laurent Agostinelli: Shared Voice • Charles McDonald: Shared Voice • Tracy Lindsay: Shared Voice Matters raised in support of application • Proposals would be a good thing for A&B and a pipe should be built from Scotland to Southeast England. • Proposals would lower emissions for the future • The proposal is common sense and will produce energy as efficiently as possible • Like Cruachan this will be a brilliant system using proven technology which will work very well in the long term • This type of development is the way to go • As this is renewable it will eventually work out cheaper than other sources • Green Energy should be supported and Argyll and Bute has more than enough capacity and space. • This type of new development doesn’t have a massive effect on the environment In respect of the revised proposals as of 04.09.25 no further objections or representations from third parties were identified on the ECU website. Note: please note that the matters raised in the letters of representation above have been summarised and that the full letters of representations are available on the Energy Consents Units website at the link previously provided in this report. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: Environmental Impact Assessment Report ☒Yes ☐No Original EIAR submission 1. Introduction 2. Project and Site Description 3. Evolution of Design and Site 4. Approach to EIA 5. Landscape & Visual 6. Terrestrial Ecology 7. Aquatic Ecology 8. Marine Ecology 9. Ornithology 10. Geology& Ground Conditions : : Page 26
Page 27
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 11. Water Environment 12. Water Resources 13. Cultural Heritage 14. Access, Traffic & Transport 15. Noice & Vibration 16. Socio-Economic, Recreation and Tourism 17. Climate 18. Marine Physical Environment and Tourism 19. Shipping & Navigation 20. Commercial Fisheries 21. Summary of Effects and Conclusions FEI Report (June 2025) evaluating the revised proposals. Section 1 – Introduction and Design Update Summary Section 2 – Summary of main consultation feedback and design update. Section 3 – Design review for the Headpond Section 4 – Update Environmental Impact Assessment Appendix A – Revised Layout Appendix B – Revised oLEMP Figures Appendix C – Revised Visualisation Appendix D – Terrestrial Ecology / Geology and Soils Appendix E – Draft Outline Peat Management Plan Appendix F–Preliminary Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment Appendix G – Outline Peatland Restoration Plan Appendix H– Water Resource and Flood Risk Appendix I – Framework Construction Traffic Management Plan Appendix J–Summary EIA Residual Effects with FEI Changes Appendix K– Updated EIAR Figures The applicants also responded to the objections/concerns of the following parties to the original proposals by means of separate submissions reflecting the changes made to address the stated concerns. These are contained on the ECU website: • Glenorchy & Innishail CC • South Loch Awe-Side Community Council • NatureScot • Argyll and Bute Council • Scottish Forestry • SEPA (i) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No: If required – this will be undertaken by the ECU as the Determining Authority in this case (ii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No Page 27
Page 28
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (iii) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No N/A ☐Yes ☒No N/A (iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development ☒Yes ☐No All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR, FEI and S36 submissions. (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. Members are asked to note that this application has been submitted to the Scottish Government under Section 36 (S36) of the Electricity Act 1989. As part of the S36 application process, the applicant is also seeking that the Scottish Ministers issue a Direction under Section 57 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 that deemed planning permission be granted for the proposal. In such instances, the statutory plan (NPF4 and LDP2) are not the starting point for consideration of applications, as Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which establish the primacy of LDP policy in decision-making, are not engaged in the deemed consent process associated with Electricity Act 1989 applications. Nonetheless both NPF 4 and LDP 2, remain important material considerations informing the Council’s response to the proposal. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act does require both the applicant and the decision-maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the prospective developer shall have regard to: Page 28
Page 29
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (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, historic 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. Similarly, it obliges the Scottish Ministers in their capacity 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). Consideration of the proposal against NPF 4 Policies, and the adopted Argyll & Bute LDP2 Feb 2024, will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent which the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties and in respect of the deemed planning permission issued to accompany any grant of consent under the Electricity Act 1989. 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 10 – Coastal Development NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism NPF4 Policy 32 – Aquaculture Annex B – National Statements of Need 2. Pumped Storage Hydro 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure 4. Circular Economy Materials Management Facilities Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Page 29
Page 30
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places 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 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 24 – Existing Tourism Uses Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Policy 42 – Safeguarding Piers and Harbours Sustainable Communities Policy 48 – Developer Contributions 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 Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 – Geodiversity Page 30
Page 31
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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. • Planning Advice Notes & Web-based Renewables Guidance • Renewable energy and climate change policy framework • Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 • The Future of Energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy, Scottish Government (December 2017) and position Update dated 16.3.21 • Scotland’s Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and Ministerial statement (Dated 10.1.23) • The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute, and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2013) • Views of statutory and other consultees; • Planning history of the site • Legitimate and material public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters • ABC Landscape Studies • ABC Economic Development Action Plan • ABC Housing Emergency Statement National Energy Policy Framework as a material planning consideration Energy Policy Framework Statutory and policy requirements at UK and Scottish level to mitigate climate change, increase renewable energy generation and support necessary energy infrastructure upgrade to the grid are informed by higher level international agreements, primarily the Paris Agreement (2015) which commits United Nations signatory countries to take action to cut carbon emissions and emphasises the aim of restricting temperature rises to below 2°C above preindustrial levels. At the UK level, a range of policy documents set out the UK Governments binding commitments to cut carbon emissions through the deployment of renewable energy, including the UK Government’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution (2020), Energy White Paper (2020), Carbon Plan (2011), the UK Renewable Energy Roadmap (2011) (updated 2012 and 2013) and the British Energy Security Strategy. The publication of Scotland’s Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and the accompanying Ministerial statement (Dated 10.1.23) further reinforces the importance of achieving net zero and addressing the Climate Emergency. The national policy position contains a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development; coupled with support for the delivery of renewable energy generation capacity, including energy storage projects such as pump hydro proposals at a range of scales. Support for such schemes feeds into policy consideration and guidance at all levels, in recognition of the wide range of benefits they offer in both storing renewably generated electricity and provided a base load and quick input energy source at peak energy usage times. NPF 4 identifies pump storage hydro schemes (PSH) as key assets to achieve these Page 31
Page 32
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL objectives and recognises that increasing the capacity of PSH can complement ambitions for more renewable energy capacity. Officers accept and ask members to note that there is robust high level Energy/Climate Change policy support for the current proposals. This is considered to be a substantive material consideration in favour of the proposals. NPF 4 and LDP 2 Policy Framework This stated high level policy support which is a material planning consideration in this instance does not undermine the need for the proposals to address the other policy objectives of NPF4 and LDP 2 which, although supporting the proposals, requires issues such as landscape impacts, flooding impacts, biodiversity/protected Species impacts, socio economic impacts, and “peat /carbon storage impacts to be considered in a balanced judgement on compliance with the overall objectives of NPF4 and related LDP 2 Planning Policies. Members are also requested to have regard to the specific advice contained within NPF4 at Page 07 in relation of Pump Hydro Storage Schemes which are identified as one of the six priority development types which support the delivery of sustainable places. NPF 4 states that; Pumped Hydro Storage extends hydro-electricity capacity to support the transition away from fossil fuels, whilst also providing employment opportunities in rural areas. 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. 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. (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 S36 Application. (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No Page 32
Page 33
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Local Landscape Area. (North Argyll) • SEPA Flood Area (Loch Awe levels) • Peat and Peat Habitat • European Protected Species Impacts (Marine and Terrestrial). (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Unclassified Land / Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☒Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☐N/A Peat Depth Classification: Refer to EIAR and FEI details 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 Refer to EIAR and FEI submissions. (Note: Loss of small area of ancient woodland associated with tail pond construction on land adjacent to banks of Loch Awe). ☐No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☒Yes. Some details of proposed replanting provided to compensate for ancient woodland loss, but additional details to be secured by condition still required. ☐No ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☒Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A Page 33
Page 34
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The reduction in scale of the proposals in terms of headpond land take, scale of construction operations, and reduced water discharge rates to Loch Awe has reduced the potential impacts of the proposals on; (i) Biodiversity and Protected Species (Marine and Terrestrial) (ii) Peat and Peatland Habitat (iii) Water levels fluctuations of Loch Awe and potential flooding National and local policy support for pump hydro proposals carries significant weight which favours the approval of this application. In this instance it is considered that the benefits of the scheme in addressing the climate emergency outweigh any residual impacts as set out in more detail in this report and accompanying EIAR and FEI submissions. It is therefore recommended that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as set out in this report and other statutory consultee responses (and in particular those of NatureScot and SEPA) that no objection be raised to the proposals and the current “holding objection” lodged with the ECU be withdrawn. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No There are acknowledged impacts associated with the proposals, relating to; • Loss of a small area of ancient woodland (tailpond area) • Landscape Impacts Temporary and Permanent • Impacts upon European Protected Species • Impacts on peatland and associated habitat That NPF 4 seeks to address both the climate and biodiversity emergency is noted and has been weighed in the balance of forming this recommendation. Having regard to these matters it is considered by Officers that the benefits in providing additional significant pump hydro storage energy capacity outweighs the impacts of the proposals in this instance on the basis that additional mitigation measures can be secured through the imposition of appropriate conditions. Therefore, the development is considered, as a matter of planning judgement, to comply with the overall objectives of NPF 4 and LDP 2 as set out in this report, and it is therefore recommended by Officers that no objection be raised to the amended proposals and that the current “holding objection” be withdrawn. Author of Report: David Moore Date: 04.09.2025 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 05.09.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 34
Page 35
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO S36 CONSULTATION NUMBER: 24/01324/S36 PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 In Scotland, any proposal to construct, extend, or operate an onshore electricity generating station, in this case, a pump storage hydro, with a capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW), requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under section 36 of the Electricity Act. Such applications are processed on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Energy Consents Unit (“ECU”) Scottish Government - Energy Consents. Section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“TCP(S)A”) also allows the Scottish Ministers, on granting consent under section 36, to direct that planning permission for that development shall be deemed to be granted, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the direction. 1.2 The consultation bodies to be consulted by the Scottish Ministers on Section 36 applications are the relevant planning authority, NatureScot, SEPA, Transport Scotland and HES and any other relevant public bodies with specific environmental responsibilities or local and regional competencies who the Scottish Ministers consider are likely to have an interest. The Council’s role in this process is therefore one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed in the event that authorisation is given by Scottish Ministers. 1.3 In the event of an objection being raised by the Council, the Scottish Ministers are obliged to convene a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to approve the proposal. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Such an Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. In the event that consent is given, either where there has been no objection from the Council, or where objections have been overruled following PLI, the Council as Planning Authority would become responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, and for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement of such conditions contained in any issued “deemed planning consent”. Any decision notice would have a Part 1” List of conditions for the ECU to discharge and a “Part 2” deemed planning permission where the Planning Authority (often in consultation with other statutory consultees) will be required to consider and discharge the conditions. 1.4 This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other internal consultations undertaken by the Council, and 3rd party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government following publicity of the application by them. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Scottish Government on behalf of the Council before a final decision is taken on the matter. 2. Settlement Strategy 2.1. The site is located in an area designated as remote Countryside within LDP 2 and the overall red line boundary comprises an area of 3,054 hectares. The application is to Page 35
Page 36
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL construct and operate a Pump Storage Hydro scheme and associated development which is commonly referenced as the Balliemeanoch development. The Development will have approximately 900 MW installed electrical generation capacity. 2.2. At para 3.5 LDP 2 confirms that ; The plan seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in those areas identified in the proposals maps as Countryside Areas. These are areas, where suitably scaled new development which in the opinion of the Council as Planning Authority is able to meet the sustainable development criteria outlined in Policy 02 (A) below will normally be permitted. In those Countryside Areas where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place proposals for development will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. Outwith the Countryside Areas or Settlement Areas identified on the proposals maps new development will only be supported for those specific types of development identified in Policy 02 (B) covering Remote Countryside, or Policy 02 (C) if in the Helensburgh and Lomond Green Belt. 2.3. The site is just within a designated Remote Countryside. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the terms of this policy under Part B as a “recognised countryside activity” and also by association and function to “renewable energy related development” which are acceptable uses in Remote Countryside Areas. 2.4. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with LDP 2 Policies 02 and 30. 3. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 3.1. The application site is extensive at some 3,054 (Ha) not only due to the scale of the headpond to be formed , but also as there are tailpond inlets/outlets, a new marine jetty and revised internal and external access arrangements from Inveraray to the main site where the head pond and power generating turbines and hall will be located. The marine jetty will be semi-permanent with the “piles” being retained following delivery of the larger plant in order to allow for any future similar deliveries required throughout the operating life of the proposals. 3.2. The main development is located approximately 4.4 km to the south of the village of Portsonachan and 9 km northwest of Inveraray, The main development site is generally characterised by upland moorland plateau grazing land with conifer woodland. 3.3. The tailpond inlet / outlet is located on Loch Awe, south of Balliemeanoch. and extends approximately 80 m into Loch Awe. The existing ground slopes to the southeast at a gradient of approximately 14 % to the existing farmer’s track, where it levels out and slopes steadily upwards to the proposed headpond location in the east. The Balliemeanoch farmhouse is located approximately 400 m away from the proposed inlet / outlet location. 3.4. The main elements of the proposed development are set out below: 3.5. Above Ground • Headpond - comprises the upper reservoir and Embankments retaining the water in the headpond. The headpond is located within the south of the main Development Site at Lochan Airigh centred on NGR NN 04594 16411. An inlet / outlet structure Page 36
Page 37
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL will predominantly sit within the Embankment where the waterway exits the Headpond and will house mechanical equipment; • Tailpond - comprises the lower reservoir and in the case of the Development, will be the existing body of Loch Awe. The tailpond will include two lower gate houses located approximately 90 m southeast of the inlet / outlet structure screens. A water- tight, temporary cofferdam structure will be constructed for the tailpond works. The area within the cofferdam will be pumped dry to facilitate the construction of the tailpond inlet / outlet structure; • Temporary and permanent construction compounds required at various locations across the development site for equipment and material storage, tunnel access, a site office, and welfare facilities; • Newly formed access to the Development Site from the public transport network; • Access tracks - both temporary and permanent, for movement around the Development Site. • Temporary realignment of a 1.5 km section of the B840 to allow for construction of the tailpond inlet /outlet structure; • Sections of existing informal walking routes within the development site boundary will be temporarily diverted during construction. The applicant has confirmed that these routes will be fully reinstated on completion of construction; • A Switching Station consisting of two secure electrical compounds in which electrical equipment will be housed. In addition, a number of parking spaces and permanent welfare facilities will be provided; • A temporary construction Marine Facility with jetty will be constructed within Loch Fyne. This will be used for delivery of abnormal indivisible loads (“AILs”) of materials and equipment during construction, removed post construction and reassembled during operation for maintenance when required. The support piles for the pier would remain in place following construction, and the deck would be reassembled as needed for maintenance purposes during operation. The pier will be approximately 180 m in length from the shoreline and 10 m wide. 3.6. Below Ground • Waterways consisting of a high-pressure tunnel to the Power Cavern Complex and a low-pressure tunnel between the Power Cavern Complex and tailpond inlet / outlet structure, a spillway for draining excess water from the headpond, also containing a scour pipe for scouring and draining in an emergency, and surge shafts as in-built safety features; • Power cavern, incorporating the powerhouse (containing reversible pump turbines), transformer gallery (containing the transformers) and a main inlet valve (“MIV”) hall; and, • Tunnels for access, construction and power which will also be used in operation. 3.7. Separate to the current Section 36 Application, the applicants have clarified that there will also be a grid connection for the Development required. The grid connection does Page 37
Page 38
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL not form part of this Section 36 Application and will be subject to its own separate S37 application for consent by the Scottish Ministers. The Planning Authority will be consulted in relation to these future proposals. The Development will connect into the grid at the approved Creag Dhubh substation (REF:22/00782/PP, currently under construction) via the proposed Switching Station within the Development. 4. Landscape Character 4.1. As the proposal have been amended and the scale reduced, the applicants as part of the FEI submissions have submitted a revised LVIA evaluation. The following main alterations to the scheme have been made in respect of potential landscape impacts • Embankment 1 reduced in height from 95 m to 63 m (above existing ground level). • Embankment 2 has reduced in height from 13 m to 9 m • Borrow pit (for dam construction material) reduced from 10,678,050 m3 to 2,432,660 m3 • Reduced head pond scale requires reduced peat excavation from 642,450 m3 to 140,560 m3 • New Floating Access Tracks : The total length of floating access tracks has increased by approximately 60m from the original s36 submission, to a total length of 3,867 m (+2 %). This is due to the relocation of PC09 • Temp Construction Access Tracks: The total length of temporary construction access tracks has reduced by 2,715m to a total length of 2,683 m (- 50.23%). This is largely due to the re-classification of the proposed access track to the north of the headpond area from temporary to permanent. (Overall the total length of tracks (permanent and temporary) is broadly similar to the previous scheme.) • PC09 has been relocated to align with the re-evaluated headpond Embankment 1. • PC17 has been relocated to align with changes to the below ground infrastructure (Table 3-3) following re-evaluation of the headpond. PC17 is the location of the Gate Shaft. (the finished elevation is consistent with the original s36 application.) • PC18 has been relocated to align with changes to the below ground infrastructure (Table 3-3) following re-evaluation of the headpond. PC17 is the location at which the Surge Shaft will sit at surface level (The finished elevation is consistent with the original s36 application). • PC19 has been relocated to align with changes to the below ground infrastructure (Table 3-3) following re-evaluation of the headpond. PC19 is the location of the Ventilation Shaft will sit at surface level (The finished elevation is consistent with the original s36 application). Details of the below ground infrastructure changes are set out at Table 3-3 of the FEI (Page 7) These do not require to be re-evaluated under the LVIA. 4.2. The applicants submit in the FEI that; “Within the S36 application, only one significant visual effect remained; from Dalavich (viewpoint 4) at operation year 15. However, due to the design changes, specifically the reduction in embankment height and alteration in location of the embankment, it is considered that the effects from this viewpoint would reduce to minor adverse at operation year 1 and 15, resulting in no significant adverse effects on landscape or visual receptors at operation year 15 arising from the Development. This is due to the reduced horizontal extent of Embankment 1 in the background of the view. The Embankment would no longer break the skyline, which would remove any effects on the undulating nature of the skyline and would be less noticeable as it would be set Page 38
Page 39
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL against the higher land form beyond rather than the sky. The revised visualisations for Viewpoint 4 can be found within Appendix D of the FEI submissions”. 4.3. Although some ridge line alterations are likely to be visible from open water, a short section of the A85, and from higher ground surrounding the site, the changes which will occur are not considered by officers significant. Although there will be some interruption of existing ridgelines caused by the main headpond wall, this will be of a scale which will not have any significant adverse landscape impacts. It is considered that the main above ground features associated with the construction of the development, subject to control over colouring and materials, together with landscaping and soft engineering solutions, will be capable of being successfully assimilated into the receiving landscape without causing unacceptable visual impact. 4.4. In respect of the proposed permanent compounds and access tracks, these are not widely visible from the surrounding landscape except in more distant views from high points. It is considered that these will be able to assimilate into the wider landscape and have no significant adverse impacts. 4.5. The partially retained jetty piles within Loch Fyne which will be permanent features are not considered to have any significant landscape impacts. These are also further considered in respect of Cultural Heritage at a later stage in this report. 4.6. Officers therefore consider that in terms of potential Landscape and Visual impacts associated with the proposals there will be no significant adverse impacts on the designated North Argyll Local Landscape Area (LLA) and the proposals, as amended, are considered, to be in accordance with the requirements of LDP 2 Policies 30 and 71 and NPF 4 Policies 4 and 11. 5. Flooding and Water Levels in Loch Awe 5.1 There has been detailed discussion between SEPA and the applicants over the potential impact of the proposed development on the water levels of Loch Awe and a considerable number of objections to the original scheme were received from statutory consultees, other commercial operations in the area, and also third parties on this matter. Many of these objections centred around the potential impact of the discharges from the proposed Balliemeanoch scheme, causing a potential increase in the levels of Loch Awe which would increase flood risk. The applicants have amended the scheme and submit in the FEI that: Detailed hydraulic modelling demonstrates that the revised Development would not increase flood risk to properties around Loch Awe, or downstream of Awe Barrage. In fact, during several historical flood events, the Development would provide slight reductions in peak water levels. The modelled results show that the proposed scheme does not have a detrimental impact on flood risk, and in most cases would have resulted in reduced peak flood levels. This is because during flood events the Development would stop generating and so is not actively adding water, and may only extract water, but also because the operation of the Development creates different starting water levels before flood events occur. The Development, therefore, does not exacerbate existing flood impacts, and may provide a slight flood reduction benefit for some events. As such the proposal complies with Policy 22 of NPF4…. The residual effects (pre-construction, construction, and operation) are unaffected by the proposed reduction in Headpond size and associated infrastructure changes. Although the changes identified may have some beneficial effect, the overall conclusions of the chapter in the EIAR still apply. Further details are included in Appendix H. Page 39
Page 40
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 5.2 Members will note that SEPA lodged objection to the original scheme due to the proposals being considered to have an unacceptable impact on the water levels within Loch Awe with potential flooding consequences. This objection was re-stated by consultation response dated 14.08.25. However, following further consideration of the submissions in the FEI, an updated consultation response dated 03.09.25 has been received. SEPA have now withdrawn their objection in respect of potential flooding matters subject the imposition of appropriate controls and conditions over the discharge of water from the development into Loch Awe. In respect of these matters they state; We remove our objection to this application on the basis of flood risk subject to the modification in Section 1.11 being made to the proposal. If this is not made, then please consider this representation as a holding objection. We can remove our objection to this application on flood risk grounds provided the hands-off high level (stop generation) is amended from 37.20m AOD to 36.57m AOD (December to March) and 37.06m AOD (April to November), and information is provided to the satisfaction of the determining authority to demonstrate this modification has been made to the proposals and will be adhered to for the operating life of the development. However, as previously highlighted, to ensure the operation of the scheme does not result in an increase in frequency or magnitude of flood events will require consideration of the interactions between the different operators, and therefore the agreement of a water balancing/operating regime with SSER and DRAX, who operate the other hydro schemes on Loch Awe. We understand from the meeting that this aspect of the proposal cannot be achieved as part of the Section 36 consent but would welcome confirmation from the determining authority on how the agreement of interactions between the different operators may be achieved/addressed to ensure there is no increase in flood risk. (Officer Note: the retained SEPA objection in respect of Peat will be addressed within Section 8 of this report). 5.3 The evaluation of both the individual potential discharge from Balliemeanoch, together with other existing operations (i.e. Cruachan) which can impact the water levels in Loch Awe are complex technical matters which planning officers are not qualified to provide authoritative advice on. In this instance the necessary professional expertise to evaluate such matters rests with SEPA as the Statutory Consultee on flooding matters for such proposals. 5.4 Although SEPA have now withdrawn their flooding objection, Officers note that there remains an element of clarity still required as to how the discharge controls required to safeguard local interests from unacceptable flood risk will actually be delivered. Of particular note in their consultation response is that: We understand from the meeting that this aspect of the proposal cannot be achieved as part of the Section 36 consent but would welcome confirmation from the determining authority on how the agreement of interactions between the different operators may be achieved/addressed to ensure there is no increase in flood risk. 5.5 Ensuring competent and effective controls on this matter is the responsibility of the Determining Authority to address and not the Planning Authority. That there is an agreed maximum discharge rate and volume to the Loch from this scheme which would address these flooding concerns is a matter of substantive weight. Page 40
Page 41
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 5.6 Officer therefore defer to the expert views of SEPA on this matter but clarify that they agree with the views of SEPA that the proposal should not be granted S36 consent until the Determining Authority has resolved this matter to the satisfaction of SEPA and the Planning Authority in a legally and procedurally competent manner. 5.7 Officers also request that Members note that the previous objection by MOWI to the changes in water levels proposed by the original scheme, which they contended would adversely impact upon their operations, has been withdrawn by response dated 19.08.25 and they are now content with the proposals as set out below ; Accordingly, and subject to the above modifications to the scheme, the risk of adverse effects to our operations has significantly reduced and I can confirm that MOWI is content to withdraw our objection to the granting of consent for the scheme. We remain concerned, as a matter of principle for the potential for adverse effects on watercourses (water quality) through polluting surface water run off during construction activity, especially watercourses that drain into Loch Awe. However, we are content that this risk can be adequately controlled by robust and effective pollution prevention and construction management conditions attached to the granting of any consent 5.8. The Councils Flooding and drainage advisor has examined the development in respect of the site construction and localised flooding and how this could impact the site and has raised no objections subject to a condition to ensure any water crossings are constructed in a manner to avoid localised flooding. 5.9 Officers consider that comments of SEPA on flooding and appropriate levels and controls for Loch Awe maximum water levels are a substantive planning consideration as they have the necessary expertise to evaluate the complex issues involved which affect the water levels and the consideration of flooding matters related to the Loch. 5.10 Officers recommend that the Planning Authority should defer to, and accept the views of SEPA, on this particular technical issue. It is therefore considered that subject to the requirements of SEPA, as set out in their response dated 03.09.25 are met, that the Planning Authority takes the view that NPF 4 Policies 11 and 22 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 55 can be properly addressed by the Determining Authority in considering whether to approve the application. 6. Natural Environment Ecology, Ornithology and Biodiversity (Terrestrial) 6.1. The submitted EIAR and FEI indicates that there are a number of European Protected Species which will be impacted as a result of the construction and operations proposed development, and also therefore will be impact on peat habitat and ancient woodland as a biodiversity resource. 6.2. NatureScot raised objection to the original proposals on the potential adverse impact on Peat Habitat. However, they have now withdrawn their previous objections to the scheme following the amendments and the FEI submissions by the applicant. NatureScot confirm by response dated 28.08.25 that: The FEI, and subsequent discussion with the applicant, provide sufficient information on the effects of the proposal on priority peatland habitats and a detailed commitment to restore an extent of peatland habitat that will compensate for habitats lost and disturbed as a result of the proposal. We can confirm that NatureScot withdraws its outright objection, dated 04 February 2025, with respect to priority peatland Page 41
Page 42
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL habitat subject to the following appropriate measures being appropriately secured by condition and/ or legal agreement. - A fully developed and detailed peatland restoration plan containing sufficient on-site and off-site restoration; - A fully developed biodiversity enhancement plan; and - The production of a robust Deer Management Plan. Our revised position is however conditional upon the above measures, as set out in the applicant’s Additional Information: Appendix G - Outline Peatland Restoration Plan, and associated documents, being secured through appropriate conditions and/ or legal agreement bound to any consent. For the avoidance of doubt, if these measures cannot be appropriately secured our position would remain that of outright objection. 6.3. The Councils Biodiversity advisor in her original response was of the view that the original, and larger, proposals failed to provide robust and comprehensive protected species surveys, and would unacceptably impact on European Protected Species and also Ancient Woodland as a biodiversity resource of great importance. 6.4. Further discussions in respect of the amended and reduced scheme has clarified that subject to the imposition of appropriate suspensive conditions the Councils Biodiversity Officer is content that no objection should be raised to the proposals in respect of such matter. This confirmed in her updated response of 04.09.25. 6.5. On this basis, Officers propose pre-commencement conditions are imposed in respect of the following matters; • The provision of updated surveys for European Protected Species (terrestrial and ornithological • The provision of necessary detailed Species Protection Plans to include best practice mitigation. (to also include any necessary approved Licenses from NatureScot) • Pre-works surveys for Protected Species (terrestrial and ornithological) at the appropriate time of year by a suitably qualified ecologist • Submission of a Peat Management Plan for both on site /off site restoration works in accordance with NatureScot revised comments and suggested condition. • Submission of a Biodiversity Net Gain/Enhancement Plan linked to both onsite and offsite works. This to include clarification of all of habitat and woodland compensatory works to achieve biodiversity enhancement associated with the implementation of the overall scheme. • A Deer Management Plan • A Bird Protection Plan • Invasive non-native species removal plan • Tree Protection Plan and felling strategy to protect all retained trees and their root systems Page 42
Page 43
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Management Plan to secure the retention of high biodiversity features whether in situ or on site, such as deadwood (standing and fallen) • Details of Enhancement planting of native trees appropriate to the locality of the area and locally sourced 6.6. Although all impacts on the natural environment cannot be avoided on a development of this scale, it is considered that subject to the imposition of these pre-construction conditions that the development is considered acceptable when the benefits of the scheme are factored into the balance of the judgement. 6.7. In that there will be no unacceptable impacts on these matters the proposals are considered to be in accordance with NPF 4 Policies 1, 3, 6 and 11, The proposals are also considered to be in accordance with the requirements of LDP 2 Policies 30, 73, 77, 78 and 79. 7. Marine Environment and Marine Ecology. 7.1. Members will note previous objections to the original scheme, from a number of consultees and third parties were substantially based upon the alteration of projected water levels within Loch Awe associated with the operation of the proposal and cumulative operational uses of the Loch relating to its levels being unacceptable. These objections were from statutory consultees, other commercial operators reliant on the Loch and also from residents who had concerns over potential flooding of land, properties and roads associated with the proposed operational parameters of the original scheme and the resultant maximum water levels. 7.2. It was also contended in these objections by Argyll Fisheries Trust that the fluctuation in the water levels then proposed would result in an effect on migratory fish species in Loch Awe and River Awe, including Atlantic salmon, brown/sea trout, European eel, and lamprey species, and in the context of the origional EIAR, this was accepted by the applicants to be Significant in the EIAR. 7.3. To address matters, the scheme has been amended to reduce the impact of the operation of the development on the water levels in Loch Awe and the associated Marine environment. Full details of these alterations, and resultant alterations to the potential alterations to Loch Awe water levels can be found within the FEI documentation. Members will note there has been a substantial amount of discussion and exchanges between the applicants and SEPA on these technical matters. 7.4. The appellants contend in respect of the amended proposals subject to FEI that given that the magnitude of the changes in water level on Loch Awe are being reduced by two-thirds, and that negligible changes in flows are expected from Loch Awe into the River Awe, the resulting moderate adverse effect on migratory fish species in Loch Awe and River Awe is considered as being mitigated to a minor adverse effect and is Not Significant. 7.5. Given that the range of water fluctuation has been reduced officers consider that the proposals should be considered acceptable and no objection raised in respect of these matters. Page 43
Page 44
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 7.6. The Councils Marine Officer by response dated 04.09.25 has requested that updated surveys are provided related to potential ecological impacts associated with the construction of the Jetty in Loch Fyne, and also that a management and mitigation plan in respect of potential construction noise and vibration impacts on sea mammals be required by condition. These have been added to the list of recommended suspensive conditions in accordance with her requirements. In her response dated 04.09.25 she clarifies that: Marine Ecology Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil Nature Conservation Marine Protected Area (NC MPA) In terms of the Marine Facility, which consists of a pier structure and further to the Marine Officer’s Scoping Opinion comments on 29.07.22 (Ref: 22/01453/SCOPE), I note that the Applicant has not conducted a valid Subtidal Benthic Survey as was discussed under section 8.3 – Methodology of the Scoping Report. Given that the survey was conducted in December 2021 and that surveys of this nature are valid for up to two years, it is the Officer’s opinion that the proposal is capable of affecting the protected features of Upper Loch Fyne and Loch Goil NC MPA, in particular immediately adjacent to the proposed pier structure. The reasoning behind this is that over time there can be changes within the benthos and its associated communities. I therefore recommend a pre-commencement subtidal benthic survey/study be conducted to confirm the abundances of the PMFs of which include kelp and seaweed communities on sublittoral sediment, burrowed mud (including the mud burrowing amphipod (Maera loveni) and Nephrops norvegicus (Norway lobster), fireworks anemone (Pachycerianthus multiplicatus) and tall seapen (Funiculina quadrangularis) before development commences. Marine mammals It is the Marine Officer’s opinion that grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) have not been considered by the Applicant within the EIA, with no strong evidence provided for why this species was not included within the assessment. It is recommended that a pre- commencement condition will include an appropriate survey for the species. In addition, a pre-commencement condition will include appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented for all marine mammal species during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Marine Facility. Mitigation will include a Marine Mammal Monitoring Management/Sighting Plan with Marine Mammal Observers, and a ‘Soft Start’ approach in place over the construction period. The Applicant will log daily cetacean and basking shark sightings and prepare a report during the construction period. Biosecurity As a pre-commencement condition, it is the Marine Officer’s opinion that comments received from NatureScot on 04 February 2025 (Ref: CDM176304) under Annex C - Biosecurity: that all biosecurity considerations are extended to incorporate Loch Fyne. 7.7. The proposals are therefore considered, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policies 3 and 11 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 73. 8. Impact on Peat and Blanket Bog Habitat. Page 44
Page 45
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 8.1 The original application EIAR concluded that the loss of blanket bog (approximately 37 ha of which is considered to be degraded, and 50 ha of which is considered to be intact) would result in a Permanent Adverse effect of Regional Significance. 8.2 The revised design of the Development, means that the permanent loss of blanket bog from direct impacts will be reduced to approximately 47.7 ha and the temporary loss of blanket bog from direct impacts will be 10.5 ha. The total area of blanket bog loss predicted in the EIAR, for comparison, was approximately 87 ha. Due to the reduction in size of the Headpond, the area of land available for enhancement of bog/heath under the existing Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (oLEMP) would increase to approximately 538 ha (or approximately 5.3 km2). 8.3 Revised Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (oLEMP) figures can be found within the FEI at Appendix B and the Outline Peatland Restoration Plan in Appendix G. The applicant accepts by submission that to compensate for the loss of 58.2 ha of blanket bog, approximately 582 ha will need to be enhanced (to achieve a ratio of 1:10 for loss: enhanced). Further, to then achieve an overall net gain, and comply with NPF4 objectives, an additional 5.82 ha of blanket bog enhancement will be required (equating to 10% of the area to be lost). In total therefore, an area of approximately 587.82 ha (5.87 km2 requires to be identified for restoration/enhancement). While some of that can be delivered on the Development Site within the oLEMP area, it may be necessary to identify off-site locations to meet the total area required. 8.5 The applicant has by submission therefore committed to developing, post-submission, and as a suspensive condition of consent, a detailed Peatland Restoration Plan which achieves a total area of 590 ha of peatland restoration/enhancement. This would follow NatureScot Peatland ACTION guidance and would not rely on cessation of burning (noting the Peatland ACTION guidance and NatureScot comments on the oLEMP). The detailed Peatland Restoration Plan would be submitted to NatureScot for approval prior to commencement of construction activities for the Development. Such restoration would also involve improved habitat restoration and biodiversity benefits. 8.6 Officers note that on this basis NatureScot have withdrawn their previous objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, SEPA in their response dated 03.09.24 have maintained their holding objection in respect of peat matters and impacts stating that: As previously advised, we require to be provided with an updated layout overlain on GWDTE and peat depth maps so that we can review the changes to the proposal. The change of plan with respect to excavated peat means that the forthcoming PMP will require considerable revision, we require to see a draft version before we would consider removing our holding objection. 8.7 The approach proposed by NatureScot requiring clarification of the details of the peat management plan prior to the commencement of development by condition is in the opinion of officers the correct approach in this instance. From submissions it seems likely that some off -site land may well be required to achieve the peat restoration 10:1 ratios required. Addressing these matters by means of suspensive condition is a well- established approach in respect of applications. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring submission of a detailed peat management plan prior to the commencement of development the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policies 11 and 22 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 79. Page 45
Page 46
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 9. Impact on Woodland/Access to Countryside 9.1. There is no woodland within the main area of the Development Site, with woodland pockets restricted to those located along proposed access tracks and a small area near the Tailpond inlet / outlet. These woodlands include plantation woodland along the existing, to be upgraded, access track off the A819 at the north; along the proposed new and upgraded existing tracks proposed to the west of Inveraray; and along the upgraded access to the north of Inveraray Castle, and as noted near the inlet / outlet on Loch Awe. 9.2. Section 6.7.7 of Chapter 6: Terrestrial Ecology of the EIAR concluded that construction of the Development could result in the unavoidable loss of a maximum of 0.42 ha of ancient semi-natural woodland, in the area of the proposed tailpond, adjacent to Loch Awe. All other possible impacts on ancient woodland, including from water level variations in Loch Awe, were assessed as having Negligible effect on this ecological feature. The revised design of the Development subject to FEI evaluation will not change the potential area of ancient woodland that will be lost to construction activities, as this impact will occur at the tailpond, where there is no change to the design. 9.3. To seek to mitigate for the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland, the Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (oLEMP) submitted with the original s36 application included the following commitments: • Extensive ecologically-appropriate planting of woodland to expand native woodland beside Loch Awe and nearby, in places also providing visual screening of Tailpond infrastructure; • Rehabilitation of the caravan zone near the Tailpond by a) removal of caravans, non-native plants, ruderal vegetation and hard-standing; b) planting of appropriate native trees (as standards rather than saplings) to suit and expand the existing thin strip of ancient woodland here; and c) translocation of turves (including deep soil) of ancient woodland ground flora from the Tailpond area to this rehabilitation zone, to replace existing soil/vegetation where currently degraded, under existing trees or planted standards; and • For retained ancient semi-natural woodland close to works and at possible risk of incursion by works activity, an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will supervise appropriate demarcation and signposting to exclude plant, vehicles, materials or personnel, and will monitor the exclusion zones to ensure compliance and to take action in the event of non-compliance. This will be additional to standard tree protection measures already included as embedded mitigation. Following the implementation of mitigation measures summarised above and described in the oLEMP, it was concluded that there would be a residual Permanent Adverse effect of Local Significance, which in the context of the EIAR for the Development was considered to be Not Significant. 9.4. An assessment of the cumulative effects of the Development with other developments was carried out by the applicant as described in Section 6.8.1 of Chapter 6: Terrestrial Ecology. No schemes were identified by the applicant at the time of submitting the EIAR. However, in subsequent discussions, Argyll and Bute Council officers advised that the S37 Creag Dubh to Dalmally 275 kV overhead line project, located in the same Natural Heritage Zone (NHZ) as the Development would potentially result in the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland. Page 46
Page 47
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 9.5. The EIAR for Creag Dubh to Dalmally was therefore reviewed by the applicant as part of the FEI. The consented S37 project will (in the worst-case) result in a loss of approximately 11.65 ha of ancient semi-natural woodland. The cumulative loss of the Development and the Creag Dubh to Dalmally 275 kV project would therefore equate to approximately 12.07 ha (with both projects committed to planting of native woodland). In the context of the area around Loch Awe only, and not in the wider NHZ, the cumulative loss of ancient seminatural woodland would be approximately 1.8% of the immediate woodland area. This figure would be substantially lower for the whole NHZ. The applicants contend by submission that the cumulative losses of ancient semi-natural woodland would therefore be significant at a Local level only, and would not be considered Regionally significant. Officers are in agreement with this evaluation. 9.6. No objection to the proposals has been provided by Scottish Forestry or NatureScot on these matters. Subject to appropriate conditions ensuring compensatory planting, (and as requested by Scottish Forestry in their response dated 28.06.25) is secured by condition, the proposals are considered on balance to be considered acceptable in respect of the small loss of ancient woodland associated with these particular proposals when the benefits of the scheme in addressing the climate emergency and proposed mitigation actions are factored in. 9.7. It is noted in the submissions that some path diversions may be required. This matter can be addressed through the submission of an access plan as part of the required Construction Environmental Management Plan to ensure the safety of third party users of the countryside affected by the construction works. 9.8. Given the above, the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the objectives of NPF 4 Policies 6 and 11 and LDP 2 Policies 30 and 78. 10. Heritage and Cultural Assets 10.1. Officers are of the opinion that no significant adverse impacts will occur or Heritage or Cultural Assets as a result of the application proposals. In their consultation response HES evaluate the potential impacts of the proposals on heritage assets and conclude that there will be no significant adverse impacts upon Heritage and Cultural Assets and raise no objection to the proposals in respect of these matters. Officers are in agreement with these conclusions. 10.2. In this instance the intention to retain the jetty pile columns on a permanent basis has been considered from both a Landscape impact and also in respect of any potential conservation and heritage interest impacts by officers. Details of the structure to be left and photomontages illustrating this are contained within the EIAR. Having regard to the scale/appearance and location of these structures officers are of the opinion that no unacceptable impacts will occur to cultural or heritage interests, and in particular the setting and character of the important settlement of Inveraray which contains both listed buildings and is an important conservation area, as well as an important hub for local tourist activity and businesses. 10.3. Officers note that HES in evaluating cultural and heritage impacts also consider that the proposals will not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the Conservation Village of Inveraray or any heritage assets therein. 10.4. Given the above the proposals are considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policies 11, 15, and 16 and LDP 2 Policies 15, 16, 17 and 30. Page 47
Page 48
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 11. Piers and Harbours. 11.1. The application proposal involves the construction of a jetty into Loch Fyne to be used to utilise water transport to bring in large equipment such as turbines before transporting them to the site via both the public road and upgraded forest haul roads. 11.2. The Northern Lighthouse Board has responded as follows in respect of navigation safety: Northern Lighthouse Board note the commitment from the applicant to installing navigational lighting and marking on the temporary marine facility, and in the waters adjacent to it, during the construction phase of the project. NLB also note that following completion of the construction phase of the project, the deck of the marine facility is to be removed, with the piles remaining in place. The requirement for the lighting and marking of these obstructions will be considered by NLB. 11.3. In respect of landscape impacts, it would be preferable for all elements to be removed , but on balance, the rationale for the proposed approach in future proofing any additional large plant/machinery deliveries and minimising any future construction works required is understood and the approach is considered to be on balance acceptable. However, details of any lighting proposed should in the opinion of Officers be subject to a condition to ensure that this is minimised and reflects the rural and sensitive setting the jetty piles will be located in. 11.4. It is therefore considered that the proposals are in accordance with LDP 2 Policies 28 and 30 and NPF4 Policies 10 and 11. 12. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. 12.1. Traffic and Transport matters are addressed within the EIAR at Chapter 14 and also within the FEI at 4.10. A Framework Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been provided that sets out the B840 will not be used by any Development construction traffic. This applies to car and light goods vehicle traffic, as well as heavy goods vehicle traffic. (The Framework CTMP is attached within Appendix I of the FEI documentation). 12.2. The applicants recognise in submissions that the road geometry and character of the B840, and especially the settlements of Ford and Cladich, do not support any use by Development construction traffic. No Development site access will be provided or permitted from the B840 so there is no rationale for construction traffic to use the B840. 12.3. The applicants confirm that the future finalised CTMP will provide comprehensive signage at both the B816 and B819 clearly prohibiting construction traffic from using the B840. In addition, monitoring and enforcement measures will be put in place for the development construction programme. To ensure all construction traffic follows the approved A819 site access route, and appropriate enforcement measures will ensure the CTMP is adhered to by all construction traffic. 12.4. All Lower Control Works construction traffic will route via the A819 site access, and travel through the site to reach the Lower Control Works. This access regime will also include all construction traffic associated with temporarily diverting the route of the B840 in the environs of Balliemeanoch Farm during construction of the Lower Page 48
Page 49
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Control Works. The settlements of Ford and Cladich on the B840 are not suitable for the routing of any construction traffic and the CTMP will deliver routing, monitoring and enforcement measures to ensure no Balliemeanoch construction traffic uses the B840. 12.5. The applicant submits that: EIAR at Volume 2: Chapter 14: Access, Traffic and Transport at Table 14.8 shows the Development construction traffic would temporarily increase A819 traffic by circa 37%-38%. Bearing in mind 2023 traffic surveys showed the A819 is carrying less than 1,800 vehicles per day, there is unlikely to be any requirement or justification for road improvements to the A819 to increase vehicle capacity in order to address capacity issues created by the Development construction traffic. It may be that any Section 96 Agreement required by Argyll and Bute Council relating to the condition of the A819 before, during and at the end of the Development construction would cover road improvements in response to any road damage attributable to the Development construction traffic. 12.6. The EIAR Volume 5: Appendices, Appendix 14.1 Transport Assessment Report contains construction vehicle Swept-Path Analyses (SPA) for abnormal indivisible loads (AIL) travelling from the temporary pier proposed on Loch Fyne up the A819 to the site access. The applicant further clarifies that; For the largest AIL the SPA shows that the 86.8m long transport vehicle will be able to keep its wheels on the A819 carriageway with only limited oversail of bodywork or load beyond the edge of the vehicle carriageway. This means no load bearing carriageway widening would be required to the A819 route used by AIL. Axle loads and ground block loading should be limited to circa 16T per axle and 3.5T per square-metre respectively on public road carriageways. As such, carriageway or road structure failures should not be an issue for a road designed to A-road standards. 12.7. The SPA undertaken by the applicant indicates there is one left-hand bend on the A819 where potential oversail (bodywork and load) may require very limited improvement to a high verge / embankment on the inside of the bend. An online land registry search indicates this area is either part of the public road corridor or within the ownership of Argyll Estates. Also, at the improvements to accommodate AIL turning left from the A819 into the site access. 12.8. Officers are content that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions roads and transportation matters can be properly addressed. It is therefore proposed that the Scottish Ministers are recommended to impose conditions relating to the following matters • Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) (to include cumulative evaluation of other consented major application projects utilising the same road network within the same anticipated construction timescale) • Construction Traffic Management Plans (CTMP’s) related to all elements of the development including access safety measures to the public road and internal forest tracks to be used. • Abnormal Loads Swept Path Analysis Plan • Regular Monitoring of road condition and provision of a bond or other appropriate financial mechanism (Section 69 of Roads Act) to secure funds any necessary Page 49
Page 50
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL improvement/repairs/maintenance works to the Public Road caused by traffic associated with the proposal. 12.9. Subject to the imposition of these conditions the proposals are considered to be in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 11 and LDP 2 Policies 30, 35,36,37 and 41, 13. Other Key Policy Matters 13.1. Workers Housing Strategy 13.2. The applicants confirm by submission that at its peak the development will require circa 1000 workers. Some of these may be local contractors, however it is unlikely that a development of this scale will be resourced wholly through the use of only local and normally resident workers. It is noted and welcomed that pre-application discussions with Officers has resulted in the submission of draft Workers Housing Strategy with the S36 application 13.3. Officers are content that the steps to provide a workers housing strategy can be addressed through the imposition of a suspensive condition (as it has been on the approved SSEN projects). This is to ensure that the influx of workers associated with the construction of the project do not have an adverse impact on the operation of the local housing market and worsen the declared housing emergency situation in the local area. 13.4. NPF Policies 11(c) and 25: Socio Economic Benefits and Supply Chain Submissions 13.5. The applicants have provided commentary on Socio-Economic, recreation and tourism matters at Part 16 of the main EIAR Report. The amendments to the design of the scheme related to the FEI submission has not superseded this element of the EIAR. They submit that; The Development is likely to have a beneficial effect on the local economy during the seven year construction phase, as a result of job creation and local expenditure by the developer and contractors, alongside supply chain benefits. During the construction phase, workers involved in the project would use local services and spend in local restaurants and shops which would be especially beneficial outside of the high tourist season. Local businesses are predicted to have Medium sensitivity and will be impacted for up to seven years which would be a Medium magnitude of change. The significance of effect on the local economy is assessed to be Moderate Beneficial and is therefore considered to be Significant. The job market is considered to have a medium sensitivity to change, being regionally important, but robust due to existing employment numbers. The applicant anticipates that up to 1000 personnel will be employed on site during the seven year construction phase at its peak. The average number of personnel working on the Development Site will be an average of 600 to 800 workers on-site, although reduced numbers will be required during the mobilisation period and as the project nears completion. The relatively small local population will result in a need to attract workers from outside of the study area and local job market; however, it is considered that the construction of the Development will create local jobs, which will have a beneficial effect on the local job market. Additional benefits will arise as the Applicant is committed to establishing a training programme which will be available for all individuals employed on site and will help to upskill the local workforce. As the number of local jobs available during construction is unknown at this stage, the Page 50
Page 51
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL limited local population and the duration will be temporary, therefore the magnitude of change of job creation is considered to be Low. The significance of effect on the local job market is therefore likely to be Minor Beneficial, which is Not Significant 13.6. Officers consider that such matters are capable of being addressed through the imposition of a condition which will require a strategy to be produced to demonstrate mechanisms/steps to maximise the use of, and benefit to, local businesses. In addition this strategy should set out steps/actions to Maximise Socio-Economic benefits and require the applicants to address provision of training opportunities for local people and/or input into courses such as those being run at Kilmory by UHI (or other alternative and appropriate provider as may be agreed). This will widen training and legacy opportunities for the community in accordance with NPF 4 objectives on these matters. 13.7. In respect of potential impacts on tourism facilities and accommodation the applicants submit at section 16.6.3.2 of the EIAR main report that An outline Housing Strategy has been drafted as part of the s36 application (Appendix 16.2 Housing Strategy (Volume 5: Appendices)), setting out how will be accommodated without having an adverse impact on visitor accommodation capacity, and in turn the wider tourism sector. Local properties and accommodation will therefore remain available for tourists. As such, both the magnitude of change and sensitivity of tourist services in the area are considered to be Low. 13.8. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to address both maximising socio-economic benefits and requiring approval of a workers housing strategy the proposals are considered to be capable of adequately addressing policies 11(c) and 25 of NPF 4 satisfactorily. 13.9. Archaeological Matters 13.10. Although no consultation response has been received from WoSAS at time of writing It is considered that Archaeological interests can be safeguarded in this instance through the use of an appropriate suspensive condition to ensure that an Archaeological scheme of investigation is agreed in advance of development starting with WoSAS. This is the approach that has previously been recommended by WoSAS in respect of both the substation and S37 projects in the general area on similar landscape areas. 13.11. Subject to the imposition of such an appropriate condition the development is considered to be in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 7 and LDP Policy 21 13.12. Noise and Disturbance 13.13. The main potential noise impacts are considered to be associated with construction activities and not with the operation of the scheme itself. Environmental protection officers have raised no objections to the proposals and recommended no conditions in respect of noise and disturbance. However, it is considered that restrictions on hours of construction and vehicle movements, and commitment to best practice in respect of noise mitigation should form part of the requirements of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), particularly in respect any works in proximity to sensitive receptors. The tail pond formation works would appear to have the greatest potential impact on sensitive receptors directly related to construction works and therefore the CEMP should ensure that these matters are properly Page 51
Page 52
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL addressed, particularly given the lengthy anticipated construction programme of the overall scheme. Recommended Conditions The Planning Authority recommends that the following matters are addressed by the imposition of appropriate and competent suspensive conditions. (to be discharged in consultation with the identified external consultees). Environmental Protection and Ecology • Appointment of an Independent overall Project Monitoring Officer at the expense of the applicant to monitor compliance of the overall project with the terms and limitations of the consent and report such matters on a monthly basis to the Planning Authority. • Appointment of independent Ecological Clerk of Works at the expense of the applicant to monitor all works to provide a monthly report to the Planning Authority in respect of compliance to the terms of the permission. • Biodiversity Net Gain (with NatureScot) • Peat Management and Restoration Plan (with NatureScot and SEPA) • Compensatory Tree Planting Plan (with Scottish Forestry) • Updated Protected Species Surveys (Terrestrial) • Required Protected Species Management Plans (to include details any necessary NatureScot License requirements) • A Deer Management Plan (NatureScot) • A Bird Protection Plan • Invasive non-native species removal plan • Tree Protection Plan and Felling Strategy in respect of ancient woodland to protect all retained trees and their root systems and minimise works to trees utilising best practice. To include a Management Plan to secure the retention of high biodiversity features within Ancient Woodland whether in situ or on site, such as deadwood (standing and fallen) • Details of Enhancement planting of native trees appropriate to the locality of the area and locally sourced. • A pre-commencement subtidal benthic survey/study together with proposed mitigation measures to minimise any potential impacts. • A pre-commencement survey undertaken for the grey seals and provision of a management plan to include as required, appropriate mitigation measures to be implemented for all marine mammal species during construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Marine Facility. Page 52
Page 53
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • All biosecurity considerations as set out in the comments received from NatureScot on 04 February 2025 (Ref: CDM176304) are extended to incorporate Loch Fyne. • Lighting Strategy related to all above ground works to minimise impact on remote countryside at both construction and operational phases and where appropriate in accordance with protected species mitigation requirements (e.g. Bats). • Construction Environmental Management Plan (to include Access Strategy Plan and Construction Noise/Vibration Evaluation and mitigation proposals, including proposed hours of working.) • Full details of all above ground Plant/ Buildings/Structures to include materials to be used and colour finishes. • Full details of all permanent site compound areas including materials to be used and colour finishes • Full details of all permanent access tracks including material to be used and colour finishes • Should any Borrow Pit be proposed outside the headpond excavation area. Full site restoration details , including details of a bond or appropriate financial mechanism (to be independently reviewed at the cost to the applicant) shall be submitted to the planning authority in advance of any formation or extraction activities for its approval. Maximising Socio-Economic Benefits, the cyclical economy and Housing Emergency • Socio Economic Benefits Strategy (to include specific actions to be taken to achieve NPF 4 Policy 11c and Policy 25 objectives). • Workers Housing Strategy Cultural and Historic • Archaeology (with WoSAS) • Lighting strategy for temporary jetty and permanently retained jetty piles.(with Northern Lighthouse Board) Roads and Transportation • Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA) (to include cumulative evaluation of other consented major application projects utilising the same road network within the same anticipated construction timescale (with Transport Scotland), • Construction Traffic Management Plans (TMP’s) related to all elements of the permission (with Appropriate Roads Authority and Planning Authority) • Abnormal Loads Analysis/Plan (with appropriate Roads Authority and Planning Authority) • Monitoring of road conditions and provision of a bond or other appropriate financial mechanism to secure any necessary repairs/maintenance works to the Public Road caused by construction traffic associated with the proposal. (with appropriate Roads Authority) Page 53
Page 54
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 13.14. In addition to the above, Argyll and Bute Council recommend that all conditions recommended by other consultees, not addressed above, should be included in any S36 Consent. Page 54
Page 55
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/01324/S36 O 1:65,000 0 550 1,100275 Meters Application Site Page 55
Page 56
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 57
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 57 Agenda Item 5
Page 58
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 58
Page 59
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 59
Page 60
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 60
Page 61
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 61
Page 62
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 62
Page 63
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 63
Page 64
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 64
Page 65
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 65
Page 66
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 66
Page 67
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 67
Page 68
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 68
Page 69
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 69
Page 70
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 70
Page 71
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 71
Page 72
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 72
Page 73
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 73
Page 74
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 74
Page 75
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 75
Page 76
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 76
Page 77
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 77
Page 78
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 78
Page 79
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 79
Page 80
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 80
Page 81
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 81
Page 82
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 82
Page 83
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 83
Page 84
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 84
Page 85
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 Page 85
Page 86
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 87
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00535/PP O 1:1,250 0 10 205 Meters Application Site Page 87
Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 89
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE (PAN) ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 25/01210/PAN Applicant: Saulmore Bay Resort Ltd Proposal: Proposal of Application Notice for: Marina; boatyard including ancillary offices (Class 4) and store (Class 6); leisure resort including buildings for offices (Class 4), leisure use, gym, and spa (Class 11), retail (Class 1A), restaurants and cafes (Class 3), and related uses; holiday lodges (sui generis); and other holiday accommodation types (sui generis); new parking areas, roads, walkways, and cycleways; drainage and other infrastructure; and landscaping and biodiversity enhancement. Site Address: Land at Camus Bruaich Ruaidhe, Connel, Argyll and Bute ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION Proposal of Application Notices only relate to National and Major Applications, as defined by the Government’s planning hierarchy, and are a statutory requirement prior to the submission of a further associated planning application, in line with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. The PAN submission marks the start of a minimum 12- week period to allow for community consultation before an application can be lodged. This PAN submission was made valid on 21.07.2025. This means that no planning application can be made before 13th October 2025. In considering this item, Members should restrict comments to issues relating to the material considerations which may be relevant in the determination of the proposed development and should refrain from expressing opinion as to the likely acceptability of the development in advance of any subsequent application being presented for determination. Any opinions or views expressed by Councillors at the pre-application stage must be made mindful of the overarching requirements of fairness, impartiality and of keeping an open mind. The process provides the opportunity for Officers to give feedback to the prospective applicant on issues which Members would wish to see addressed within the planning application submission. The submitted information includes: • Proposal of Application Notice • Location Plan • Copy of newspaper advert The Proposal of Application Notice describes the proposed development as: “Marina; boatyard including ancillary offices (Class 4) and store (Class 6); leisure resort including buildings for offices (Class 4), leisure use, gym, and spa (Class 11), retail (Class 1A), restaurants and cafes (Class 3), and related uses; holiday lodges (sui generis); and other Page 89 Agenda Item 6
Page 90
Classification: OFFICIAL holiday accommodation types (sui generis); new parking areas, roads, walkways, and cycleways; drainage and other infrastructure; and landscaping and biodiversity enhancement.” The applicant has confirmed the following consultation steps have been undertaken: a) Local Councillors for the Oban North and Lorn Ward were notified on the 21 July 2025. b) The Connel Community Council was notified on the 21 July 2025. c) Two public meetings will be held at Connel Village Hall. d) A press notice will be placed in the Oban Times, together with posters displayed in Connel village and leaflets to be delivered to near neighbours. Officers consider that the above steps set out in the PAN are acceptable. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on the description of the development contained within the proposal of application notice, the forthcoming application is anticipated to comprise of the following mix of land uses: • Construction of Marina and boatyard; including ancillary offices (Class 4) and store (Class 6); • Leisure resort including buildings for offices (Class 4), leisure use, gym, and spa (Class 11), retail (Class 1A), restaurants and cafes (Class 3), • Holiday lodges (sui generis); and other holiday accommodation types (sui generis); • New parking areas, roads, walkways, and cycleways; drainage and other infrastructure; and • Landscaping and biodiversity enhancement. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located within open countryside, adjacent to the western settlement boundary of Connel and to the north of the A85, around Camus Bruaich Ruaidhe bay (Loch Etive). The site includes craggy upland, areas of woodland with semi-improved grassland as well as bog and rocky coastal margins, close to the entrance to Loch Etive. The landform is notably undulating, with a series of folds and shallow valleys and covers an area in excess of 8ha. The site is located within a rural area with scattered countryside housing and nearby settlements of Connel and Dunbeg. The site has a limited planning history, with no recent permissions within the last 10 years. 4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY This is not a planning application and therefore does not require evaluating and determining in accordance with Section 25 of the Planning Act against the Development Plan and its policies. However, in considering the merits of this PAN, a number of Development Plan Policy considerations are relevant. The policies likely to be considered include: Page 90
Page 91
Classification: OFFICIAL National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 2023) 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 NPF5 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland and trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic assets and places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 10 – Coastal Development NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry NPF4 Policy 27 – City, town, local and Commercial Centres NPF4 Policy 28 – Retail NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design: All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built Environment Policy 18 – Enabling Development Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourist Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 26 – Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Infrastructure Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Access Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Policy 42 – Safeguarding Piers, Ports and Harbours Page 91
Page 92
Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 46 – Retail Development – The Sequential Approach Policy 48 – Developer Contributions Policy 49 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion 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 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 80 – Geodiversity Policy 82 – Contaminated Land Land Use Designations in LDP 2: Zoned as within the Countryside Area The site is also identified as a Potential Development Area [PDA] in the adopted Local Development Plan 2 [LDP2]. PDAs are areas where development opportunities may be supported through the life of the plan, subject to those constraints identified in the schedules of the PDA’s being successfully addressed. Mini development briefs have been prepared for each PDA and are included in the Action Programme that accompanies the LDP. The briefs identify the use or range of uses considered appropriate, the constraints that need to be resolved and those policies which require to be taken into account. Within the adopted Local Development Plan 2, the site is allocated as a Potential Development Area [PDA] for a Marina/ Leisure/ Tourism use (LDP2 ref: P4018). Other Relevant Policy Considerations: • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Marine Planning Policy As part of the proposed development extends into the marine environment, the Council, as a public body, is required to take authorisation decisions in accordance with the National Marine Plan (NMP), unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal must be consistent with General Policies of the NMP which include: • GEN 1 General planning principle, • GEN 2 Economic benefit, • GEN 3 Social benefit, • GEN 4 Co-existence, • GEN 5 Climate change • GEN 6 Historic environment • GEN 7 Landscape/seascape, • GEN 8 Coastal process and flooding, • GEN 9 Natural heritage, • GEN 10 Invasive non-native species, Page 92
Page 93
Classification: OFFICIAL • GEN 11 Marine litter, • GEN 12 Water quality and resource, • GEN 13 Noise, • GEN 14 Air quality, • GEN 21 Cumulative impacts. The proposal must also be consistent with Marine Planning Policies of the NMP that include: TRANSPORT 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. 5.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS In respect of this proposal, it is considered that the following matters will be material considerations in the determination of any future planning application: a) Local Development Plan Policy; b) National Planning and Marine Planning Policy; c) Flood Risk, Water Quality and Drainage; d) Road Network, Parking and Transport Matters; e) Peats and Soils; f) Access and Recreation; g) Natural Heritage and Biodiversity (including impact on designated sites and Marine Designations); h) Impacts on Woodland; i) Cultural Heritage; j) Design and Layout; k) Landscape and Visual Impact; l) Contaminated Land; m) Noise and Light Pollution; n) Construction Impacts; o) Phasing; p) Open Space and Landscaping; q) Infrastructure Capacity and Delivery; r) Access, Navigation and Interaction with other Activities; s) The views of statutory consultees in respect of any formal planning application; and t) Any other material considerations raised within representations. Comments on the PAN submission have been made to the Council from the Oban Access Panel, stating that they were pleased to have the opportunity to engage with the developers, and hopefully encourage them to found their development on the principles of “Inclusive Design”. In view of the comments submitted by the panel, the Council has suggested to the agent that they include the Oban Access Panel as a further interested party that they should consult with in the consultation and preparation of any subsequent planning application for the site. 6.0 CONCLUSION This report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations against which any future planning application will be considered, as well as potential material considerations and key issues, based upon the information received to date. The list is not exhaustive, and further matters may arise, as and when a planning application is received, and in the light of public representations and consultation responses. Page 93
Page 94
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN, to allow these matters to be considered by the applicants in finalising any future planning application submission. Author of Report: Stuart Ramsay Date: 27.08.2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 29.08.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 94
Page 95
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/01210/PAN O 1:7,000 0 60 12030 Meters Application Site Page 95
Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 97
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE UPDATE ON PLANNING PERMISSION NON-DETERMINATION APPEAL: LAND TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST OF TAYNUILT SUBSTATION TAYNUILT PA35 1HP _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 24/02083/PP DPEA REFERENCE: PPA-130-2094 CASE DETAIL: Installation of an Energy Storage Facility Including Battery Enclosures, Transformers, Substation, Grid Connection, Infrastructure,Earthworks, Vehicular Access, Landscaping and Associated Works. SITE ADDRESS: Land To The Immediate West Of Taynuilt Substation, Taynuilt, PA35 1HP APPLICANT: Downing Renewable Developments STATUS: Subject to Non-Determination Appeal and with DPEA for determination. _______________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The planning application for the BESS was presented to Members for determination on 18th June 2025 with recommendation from Officers that it should be approved. At that meeting it was determined that Members wished to hold a hearing on the application to assist them in reaching a determination on whether to approve or refuse the planning application. 1.2 However, the applicant has now lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination. That means that the matter has effectively been removed from Council process without Members having an opportunity to express a formal view and the site visit and hearing have now been superseded by the appeal and can now no longer proceed. While this is not a situation the Council has experienced before (as far as we and planning are aware) this is something that other planning authorities have experienced and is a step that is open to the applicant in this case. 1.3 Members are requested to note that, notwithstanding that the Council has been unable to come to a formal view on this application, the role of the Reporter in determining the appeal, would not have been to look at whether any decision from the Council was right or wrong, but rather to look at the application De Novo, that is to say look at it from afresh on the basis of the material planning considerations that apply. . Page 97 Agenda Item 7
Page 98
Classification: OFFICIAL 1.4 Within the appeals process there is an opportunity for the Planning Authority to make submission to the Reporter on the mechanism by which the appeal should be decided. Normally, appeals are dealt with by written exchanges, however the Planning Authority can request that the appeal is determined by way of an Informal Hearing chaired by the Reporter. Although the Council has not been able to take a formal view of the application, it is recommended that, in providing the response to the appeal, the Council set out the factual position it had reached advising on the level of objection and comment the application has generated and, in particular, that Members had determined to have a site visit and pre-determination hearing and that given the nature of the application, comment and objection, that is a course that the Reporter should follow in this case. In light of the views expressed by Members at the June PPSL meeting, it is the view of officers that an informal pre-determination hearing as part of the appeal process would now be the correct approach. This would seek to ensure that there is not a “democratic deficit” caused by the non-determination appeal, which has removed both the communities right to be heard, but also the opportunity for members to seek further clarification on the merits of the application before reaching a decision as had been their intention. 1.5 Members did not to come to a view on the application as PPSL had previously determined that an informed decision could not be made without a hearing. To seek to come to a view on the application now would be contrary to that previously stated position and indeed could undermine the position that a hearing would be beneficial to the Reporter in considering matters. However, Members are able to consider whether they wish to provide further clarification on why they consider a hearing should be held by the reporter before the appeal is determined. That would provide an opportunity for Members to expand on the views set out in the previous committee minutes when the application was deferred for a hearing, should they so wish. 1.5 For the avoidance of doubt, the decision to hold a hearing or not lies solely with the Reporter and is not a matter for any other party. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Members are asked to a) Note the submission of the Non-Determination Appeal b) Consider and advise Officers whether they wish the response to the appeal to: I. Reflect the factual position the PPSL had reached advising on the level of objection and comment the application has generated and, in particular, that Members had determined to have a site visit and pre-determination hearing. and therefore recommend by submissions that this is a course that the Reporter should follow in this case and; II. Inform Officers whether Members wish to provide further clarification on why they considered a hearing should be held to those minuted at the original PPSL meeting in June, and instruct officers to submit any additional comments as part of the Planning Authority submissions to the Reporter. The Appeal documentation can be found on the DPEA website at the link below Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details Page 98
Page 99
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy - None 4.2 Financial - None 4.3 Legal - None 4.4 HR – None 4.5 Customer Service – None 4.6 Risk – None 4.7 Climate Change - None 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty - None 4.9 Equalities - protected characteristics - None 4.10 Consumer Duty - None 4.11 Island Communities - None 4.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Author: David Moore Date: 5th September 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 99
Page 100
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 101
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL Committee Development & Economic Growth 16th September 2025 Development Management Performance Update – FQ1 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 FQ1 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. Page 101 Agenda Item 8
Page 102
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.2 An Improvement Action Plan (IAP) was prepared in early 2023 in response to the 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 FQ1 2025/26 this has increased slightly from the previous reporting period. 3.4 During FQ1 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. In an effort to make further inroads in the backlog of casework, one agency staff member has been retained to augment the MAKI team. 3.5 OUTPUT: Reduced availability of professional officer resource within the DM Service during FQ1 has resulted in a notable dip in output compared to previous reporting periods. (Appendix 1, Sheet 2). It is anticipated that productivity will improve once recruitment to vacant posts has been completed although any bounce back is likely to be delayed as a result of the reduced officer availability during the Summer holiday period. 3.6 Notwithstanding the dip in productivity, FQ1 has also seen an increase in the number of invalid submissions, the consequence of this is that determinations have kept 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 thee have increased from 86 to 90 items during FQ1 (Appendix 1, Sheet 4). Whilst the dip in productivity is as a result of reduced resource availability in the short-term it is a 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. Page 102
Page 103
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.7 PRE-APPLICATION ENQUIRIES: Demand for pre-application advice remains high however Pre-application turnover is currently on track. Performance during FQ1 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 for 2025. 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. FQ1 has seen 2 of the remaining ‘legacy’ ‘householder’ items determined providing confirmation that the significant improvement to underlying performance is becoming more evident in the overall average time measures as 2025/26 progresses. 3.9 The determination of ‘legacy’ applications for the time being does however continue to have adverse consequences for overall average time performance measures as the determination of a relatively small number of older applications significantly impacts upon these KPIs. This is particularly evident again within the ‘householder’ average time measure (Appendix 1, Sheet 5) where despite 95% of all householder determinations being determined in an average time of 8.1 weeks this measure is significantly impacted by the determination of just 2 older applications that have cumulatively added 2.3 weeks to the average time period for determination of this KPI. The overall reduction in ‘legacy’ items has however allowed for improvement of the headline KPI from 14.2 weeks in FQ 4 2024/25 to 10.1 weeks in FQ1 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. 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 householder applications at FQ2 2024/25 was 8.7 weeks. 3.10 ‘LOCAL’ DEVELOPMENT: The determination of ‘legacy’ applications had a similar impact upon the average time taken measure applied to all other ‘local’ planning applications (Appendix 1, Sheet 6) where the determination of 15 ‘legacy’ applications during FQ1 cumulatively added 9.8 weeks to an average time measure that reports on the determination of 128 applications in total. During FQ1 88% of all other ‘local’ applications determined were less than 1 year old at Page 103
Page 104
Classification: OFFICIAL the time of their determination and were determined in an average of 17.9 weeks (previously 86% in 15.6 weeks at FQ4 2024/25). 63% of the total were less than 6 months old and determined in 10.2 weeks on average (previously 75% in 12.2 weeks in FQ4 2024/25). The average time taken to determine ‘all other local applications’ has decreased slightly during FQ1 from 26.4 weeks to 26.7 weeks. This slight reduction in performance is caused by the overall dip in productivity which has seen a lower volume of new applications determined during this reporting period. 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 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 CONCLUSION: Whilst it is expected that headline performance on ‘householder’ items should return within target as we progress through 2025/26, the determination of extant ‘legacy’ items will continue to impact on ‘local’ application performance until such time as the remaining 90 items have been determined, and subject to appropriate action which prevents new ‘legacy’ items from accruing. Analysis of the granular data shows that average time periods for determining 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. The slight degradation to performance during FQ1 as a result of reduced availability of officer resource underlines the importance of ensuring that the Development Management Service is adequately resourced as recent improvement in performance has been attained through the reduction in individual officer’s caseloads to manageable levels with limited exceptions. 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 Page 104
Page 105
Classification: OFFICIAL upon the local economy, delivery of housing, and health and wellbeing of individuals. 4.7 Climate Change - None 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty - None 4.9 Equalities - protected characteristics - None 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: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead: Cllr Kieron Green 8th September 2025 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – FQ1 2025/26 DM performance report Page 105
Page 106
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 107
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Statutory 478 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 2012 75.9% 1982 76.1% 1751 74.3% 1690 76.1% 415 74.9% Non-Statutory 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 56 2.1% 51 2.0% 87 3.7% 85 3.8% 23 4.2% PREAPP 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 582 22.0% 570 21.9% 520 22.1% 447 20.1% 116 20.9% Totals 656 651 685 674 607 643 679 594 631 549 584 602 549 542 529 554 2650 2603 2358 2222 554 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework received. YTD as at 30th June 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 FQ1 2025/26: Submission rates for FQ1 25/26 are on track and do not give cause for concern at this time. Commentary: FY24/25 New Casework Received FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 478 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 415 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 23 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 116 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Volume of New Casework Received PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 74.9% 4.2% 20.9% Split of Casework Received: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Appendix 1 Page 107
Page 108
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Statutory 411 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 1610 72.4% 1549 74.5% 1778 75.1% 1780 76.5% 370 70.6% Non-Statutory 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 46 2.1% 33 1.6% 75 3.2% 88 3.8% 21 4.0% PREAPP 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 568 25.5% 496 23.9% 513 21.7% 459 19.7% 133 25.4% 2224 2078 2366 2327 524 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework closed. data source = UNIform (Access queries) YTD as at 30th June 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 FQ1 2025/26: Productivity during 2025/26 has reduced although this is not wholly unexpected as the Service has operated with a vacancy during this period. Whilst output has kept pace with demand during this quarter the reduction in output is of some concern and will require to be monitored, this has and has precluded any inroads being made in the reduction of 'legacy' items. Commentary: 411 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 370 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 21 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Volume of Casework Closed PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 70.6% 4.0% 25.4% Split of Casework Closed: FY25/26 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Page 108
Page 109
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Closed 423 402 409 419 377 407 379 495 439 479 440 481 495 442 450 391 Validated 460 438 450 462 455 436 509 462 428 366 428 425 425 370 400 387 Difference (no) -37 -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 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 FQ1 2025/26: Turnover during FQ1 2025/26 has again seen output exceed demand from new applications. -37 -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 4 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 -450 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Casework Turnover Rate Page 109
Page 110
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 2+ Years 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 289 239 192 129 102 86 90 0 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 FQ1 2025/26: During FQ1, 4 new legacy items have accrued, this aligns with a period of reduced output and will require to be monitored with additional management resource being directed to this particular issue during FQ2. 204 166 130 89 66 48 48 0 0 0 0 0 85 73 62 40 36 38 42 0 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 110
Page 111
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Closed 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 133 Validated 162 118 153 159 137 117 140 117 132 120 130 115 92 103 116 117 Difference (no) 10 -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 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 FQ1 2025/26: This quarter has seen output keeping pace with demand largely through a push to close off 'legacy' pre-application enquiries which will also continue into FQ2. 10 -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 16 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 PREAPP Turnover Rate Page 111
Page 112
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 < 6 months 9.7 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 < 6 months 80 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 < 1 year 9.7 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 6 months - 1 year 0 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 < 2 years 9.7 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 1 - 2 years 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 2 All Determined 9.7 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 Over 2 years 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 Total 80 94 88 76 76 86 62 59 83 75 75 60 75 59 68 62 YTD as at 30th June 2025 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 FQ1 2025/26: During FQ1 2025/26 Householder Applications have been determined in an average of 10.4 weeks (improvement from 14.2 weeks during FQ4 24/25); 2 legacy items have been determined during FQ1 to date with a resultant impact on the overall headline figure of 1.7 weeks. The remaining items (96%) are all newer applications and have been determined in an average time period of 8.1 weeks (previously 88% in 8.5 weeks during FQ4 24/25). 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. 9.7 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 8.7 10.49.7 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 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Average no. of weeks to determine: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months < 1 year < 2 years All Determined 80 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 59 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 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 % Split: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 112
Page 113
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 < 6 months 11.3 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 < 6 months 142 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 < 1 year 14.1 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 6 months - 1 year 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 < 2 years 15.3 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 1 - 2 years 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 All Determined 16.7 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 Over 2 years 2 4 3 1 1 0 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 Total 167 136 141 132 136 153 105 129 156 155 144 163 176 155 147 128 YTD as at 30th June 2025 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 FQ1 2025/26: FQ1 has seen 15 legacy applications cleared with the effect of adding 9.8 weeks to the overall average time measure which now sits at 26.7 weeks (increase from 26.4weeks in FQ4 2024/25). FQ1 has however seen a disproportionate number of older non-legacy applications being cleared in comparison to new work items and is indicative of reduced output across the Service as a whole in this period. The volume of newer determinations is behind recent performance (62% compared to 74% during FQ4 24/25) although it is highlighted that the time periods for determination new work is continuing to improve. 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 FQ1 the determination of non-legacy local applications were undertaken in an average of 17.9 weeks (increase from 15.6 weeks in FQ4 24/25). It is however highlighted that a consistently high proportion of applications are continuing to being determined at an early stage with 62% of all local applications in FQ1 to date were newer items determined in an average time of 10.2 weeks (previously 75% in 12.2 weeks in FQ4 2024/25). 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. 11.3 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 14.1 17.915.3 21.416.7 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 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 Ave no. of weeks to determine: Local (Excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) 142 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 80 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 33 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 9 2 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 6 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY25/26 FQ1 % Split: Local (excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 113
Page 114
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 115
Document is Restricted Page 115 Agenda Item 9NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 116
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 117
Document is Restricted Page 117 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 118
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 119
Document is Restricted Page 127 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 120
This page is intentionally left blank