Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 August 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 20 August 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 13 August 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2025 at 11:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (IF ANY) 3. MINUTE (Pages 3 - 14) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 June 2025 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) (Pages 15 - 48) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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) (Pages 49 - 78) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT WEST AILEY, SHORE ROAD, COVE (Pages 79 - 100) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth REPORTS OF NOTING 7. UPDATE ON SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT SECTION 36 CONSULTATIONS (Pages 101 - 104) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
8. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS (Pages 105 - 108) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth EXEMPT REPORT FOR DECISION E1 9. PROPOSED TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (Pages 109 - 136) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:- E1 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 JUNE 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Shona Barton, Development Manager Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Bryn Bowker, Area Team Leader Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader David Moore, Senior Planning Officer Shelly Gould, Senior Planning Officer Norman Shewan, Planning Officer Helen Wallace, Local Biodiversity Project Officer Iain MacInnes, Strategic Transportation Policy Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Mark Irvine and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Dougie Philand declared a non-financial interest in planning application reference 25/00093/MFF, as he was a Commissioner on the Northern Lighthouse Board which had submitted a consultation response in respect of this application. Councillor Philand left the meeting and took no part in the determination of this application which was dealt with at item 5 of this Minute. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 May 2025 was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2025 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2025 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2025 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. Page 3 Agenda Item 3
Page 4
e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 26 May 2025 10.00 am was approved as a correct record. f) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 26 May 2025 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. 4. DOWNING RENEWABLE DEVELOPMENTS: INSTALLATION OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: LAND WEST OF TAYNUILT SUBSTATION, TAYNUILT (REF: 24/02083/PP) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The proposal is for essential energy infrastructure which contributes to addressing the Climate emergency and the objectives of NPF4 Policy 1. The application site is situated within an area of countryside on land to the immediate west of Taynuilt substation. Officers are of the opinion that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions that the BESS proposal is in accordance with the policies of the Development Plan and it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to these conditions and reasons set out in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to: 1. hold a pre-determination hearing on a hybrid basis; 2. hold an informal site visit with Planning Officers on the same day prior to the start of the pre-determination hearing; and 3. request the Applicant to provide further information at the hearing on the noise impact assessment carried out, details of the BESS technology, and the site decommissioning plan. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 3 June 2025, submitted) Councillor Gordon Blair joined the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. Councillor John Armour left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. Councillor Dougie Philand, having previously declared an interest in the following item, left the meeting at this point. Page 4
Page 5
5. DAWNFRESH FARMING LTD: REPLACE EXISTING 10 X 70M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS IN 2 X 5 GRID WITH 6 X 120M CIRCUMFERENCE PENS IN 1 X 6 GRID, INCLUDING INCREASING BIOMASS FROM 458.4 TONNES TO 700 TONNES AND INSTALLATION OF FEED BARGE: PORT NA MINE FISH FARM (ETIVE 3), INVERAWE, TAYNUILT (REF: 25/00093/MFF) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. She advised that since publication of the report, a further 3 objections to the proposal had been received. Officers did not consider that any new issues had been raised. The site is located in Loch Etive to the east of Airds Bay on the southern side of the loch. The coastline is designated as ‘Countryside Area’. It is also designated as the North Argyll Local Landscape Area. Loch Etive is designated as a Marine Consultation Area by NatureScot. The application is for the proposed modification of an existing marine fish farm for the farming of Atlantic Salmon. The Applicant proposes to relinquish consents and licenses for the nearby Etive 2 site. While the biomass at Etive 3 would increase, this would be due to transferring biomass from the Etive 2 site. Initial screening by SEPA has shown Etive 3 can accommodate this biomass and has not identified any risk to sensitive features. Overall, there would be no increase in farmed fish biomass in Loch Etive as a result of this proposal. The proposal has attracted 36 objections with around 40% of these following the proforma supplied on the ‘Friends of Loch Etive’ website and relate to visual and landscape, pollution, amenity, tourism and nature conservation impacts. No objections have been raised by statutory consultees. As the site is already in operation and there will be no overall increase in biomass in Loch Etive due to the proposed removal of the Etive 2 fish farm site, Officers consider that this removal is a positive mitigating factor on visual and landscape, pollution, amenity, tourism and nature conservation matters. It is not considered that there would be merit in holding a pre-determination hearing. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in 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) 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 9.1.2025, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is Page 5
Page 6
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 Proposed equipment co-ordinates Annex 1 23.1.2025 Existing equipment co-ordinates Annex 1 23.1.2025 Overview of Etive 3 fish farm location (1:500,000) (Dated 6.6.2024) Annex 1: Figure 1 A1 23.1.2025 Existing (installed) & Proposed site (1:10,000) (dated 19 July 2024) Annex 1: Figure 2 23.1.2025 Admiralty Chart Existing (Installed) & Proposed site (1:10,000) (dated 19 July 2024) Annex 1: Figure 3 23.1.2025 Consented & Proposed site (1:10,000) (dated 19 July 2024) Annex 1: Figure 4 23.1.2025 Admiralty Chart Consented & Proposed (1:10,000) (dated 19 July 2024) Annex 1: Figure 5 23.1.2025 Existing (installed) and proposed site surface equipment and mooring/planning boundaries.(1:5,000) (Dated 19.12.2024) Annex 1: Figure 6 23.1.2025 Admiralty Chart Extract (Existing (installed) & proposed site surface equipment, moorings, and mooring/planning boundaries)(Dated 19 Dec 2024)(1:5,000) Annex 1: Figure 7 23.1.2025 Consented & proposed site surface equipment and mooring/planning boundaries (1:5,000) (Dated 19 Dec 2024) Annex 1: Figure 8 23.1.2025 Admiralty chart extract: Consented & proposed site surface equipment and mooring/planning boundaries (1:5,000) (Dated 19 Dec 2024) Annex 1: Figure 9 23.1.2025 Proposed site surface equipment, moorings, and mooring/planning boundary (Dated 19 Dec 2024) (1:5,000) Annex 1: Figure 10 23.1.2025 Installed site configuration permission (1:1250) (Dated 6.6.24) Annex 3: Figure 1 0001 23.1.2025 Site configuration permission 16/01972/MFF (1:1250) (Dated 6.6.24) Annex 3: Figure 2 0001 23.1.2025 Surface cross section view of 6 circular plastic pens of 120m circumference in a 75m grid. Side elevation shows barge fully unladen and elevation is fully laden.(1:1,250) (Dated 6.6.2024) Annex 3: Figure 3 0001 23.1.2025 Typical Pen Design Top Net Support Option 1 (Dated 6.6.2024) Annex 3: Figure 4 0001 23.1.2025 Example of Top-Net Support Structure Annex 3: 0002 23.1.2025 Page 6
Page 7
(Dated 29.1.25) Figure 5 Proposed Typical Mooring Design (Dated 6.6.2024) Annex 3: Figure 6 0001 23.1.2025 Typical Net Design (Dated 6.6.2024) Annex 3: Figure 7 0001 23.1.2025 Example of proposed low profile feed barge (1:150) Annex 3: Figure 8 23.1.2025 Example photograph of proposed barge (dated 6.6.2024) Annex 3: Figure 9 23.1.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Acoustic Deterrent Devices No Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) shall be deployed at the site hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. This planning application has been assessed on the basis that ADDs will not be used. The use of ADDs would be regarded as a material change to the proposal. 3. Biomass and Stocking The development hereby approved shall not be operated other than with a biomass of 700 tonnes or less and shall only stock one species of fin fish (other than cleaner fish). Reason: The environmental effects of this proposal have been assessed against this maximum biomass of one species. 4. Relinquishment of Etive 2 site There shall be no increase in the biomass of Etive 3 from the previously consented 458.4 tonnes until evidence has been submitted to the planning authority to demonstrate that the CAR license for Etive 2 has been rescinded to SEPA. All equipment at Etive 2 shall be removed within 6 months of receipt of this evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Reason: This planning application has been determined on the basis that ‘Etive 2’ site will be relinquished. 5. Removal of Equipment Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, the redundant equipment relating to the previous layout shall be removed from the site. In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 7
Page 8
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to accord with LDP2 Policy 29. 6. Environmental Management Plan (EMP) The proposal shall be operated in accordance with the Loch Etive site EMP (5.12.23) unless superseded by the SEPA National Sea Lice Framework. Reason: To ensure the proposal benefits from adequate mechanisms to accord with the current environmental management requirements as stipulated by the Scottish Government Marine Directorate. 7. Waste Management Plan The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Port Na Mine Etive 3 Waste Management Plan dated April 2024 or as updated and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that waste is dealt with in a sustainable manner in accordance with Development Plan policy. 8. Pole Mounted Top Net Specification The pole mounted top net system hereby approved shall be as noted below unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot. This shall be subject to review, underpinned by systematic monitoring. The Planning Authority shall be immediately notified in the event of emergence of patterns of entanglement or entrapment of marine birds. Height (m) Perimeter Pole Support Maximum height of 5m above the water surface Mesh Size (mm) Sidewall netting from the bottom to 2m height 18 Ceiling net panel and remaining sidewall netting 100 Colour Dark grey to black Reason: To minimise the risk to all bird species and to ensure that there are no significant effects on the qualifying interests of the relevant Special Protection Areas. 9. Wildlife Recording and Reporting The proposal shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the following criteria: a) Operators shall maintain daily records of wildlife entanglement / entrapment using a standardised proforma which shall be submitted to the planning authority and copied to NatureScot at 6 monthly intervals or other specified period to be agreed Page 8
Page 9
in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot. The first proforma shall be submitted 6 months after the development is brought into use unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot. b) In the event of any significant entrapment or entanglement of gannets, and any other SPA interests identified as relevant to a particular fish farm (e.g involving three or more birds of any named species in any one day and / or a total of ten or more birds in the space of any seven day period and / or repeat incidents involving one or more birds on four or more consecutive days), the operators shall immediately notify both the planning authority and NatureScot. c) Adaptive management approaches should be agreed in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot in advance of these being implemented. Reason: In order to ensure that there are no significant effects on the qualifying interests of the relevant Special Protection Areas. Gannet have an extensive range and would have the potential to become entangled in nets. 10. Update on Biodiversity Enhancement Proposals Biodiversity enhancement proposals shall be implemented in accordance with the details set out in the ‘Further Supporting Information – biodiversity enhancement’ document (submitted by MOWI on 28.4.2025). Thereafter the applicant shall provide an annual update on these proposals, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority. Reason: In order to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive biodiversity effects and strengthen nature networks in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 3. 11. Predator Mitigation Plan The development shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Port Na mine Etive 3 Predator Mitigation Plan’ dated February 2024 or as updated and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. 12. Finished Surfaces The finished surfaces of all equipment above the water surface, excluding the feed barge, but inclusive of the surface floats and buoys associated with the development hereby permitted (excluding those required to comply with navigational requirements) shall be non-reflective and finished in a dark recessive colour unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 13. Lighting Page 9
Page 10
All lighting above the water surface and not required for safe navigation purposes should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 14. Noise The Noise Rating Level attributable to the operational activities associated with the approved fish farm shall not exceed background noise levels by more than 3dB(A) at any noise sensitive property measured and assessed in accordance with BS4142:2014. Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the area from noise nuisance. 15. Proactive notification of fish movement operations The applicant shall provide the dates of any planned fish movements utilising large vessels in a year in advance in writing to the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of improving monitoring and reducing impacts on amenity. 16. Hours of operation Except where the planning authority has been notified under the provisions of condition 15 or in situations outwith the applicant’s control (e.g. tidal conditions, fish movements delayed by bad weather or fish health interventions); no operations, other than water pumping, feeding, servicing, environmental monitoring and maintenance testing of plant/equipment shall take place on site outwith the following times: 07.00 hours to 20.00 hours over 7 days. Reason: In the interests of amenity. 17. Mitigating impacts of operations (including out of hours and Well Boat operations) All site operations including: • the use of equipment integral to the production cycle (e.g. underwater lighting and aeration systems or well boats) which is required to run overnight for fish health reasons; • operations notified under the provisions of condition 15; and • any fish health interventions or delayed operations out of hours, shall adhere to the best practice measures detailed in the ‘Further Supporting Information - mitigation of amenity impacts arising from operational effects’ document (submitted by MOWI on 28.4.2025). All delayed or out of hours operations required to be undertaken outwith the provisions of condition 15 shall be recorded by the applicant. A record of these Page 10
Page 11
out of hours activities shall then be made available to the Planning Authority on request. Reason: In the interests of improving monitoring and reducing impacts on amenity. 18. Fallow Period There shall be a minimum of 28 days in each calendar year when the site will be fallow and this shall be applied synchronously with the other fish farms within Loch Etive. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. 19. Sea Lice Policy Strategy and Efficacy Statement The development shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Port Na mine Etive 3 Sea Lice – Policy, Strategy and Efficacy Statement’ dated October 2024 or as updated and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. 20. Escapes Contingency Plan The development shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Port Na mine Etive 3 Escapes Contingency Plan’ dated February 2024 or as updated and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that an acceptable procedure is implemented in the event of an escape. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 June 2025, submitted) Councillor Dougie Philand returned to the meeting at this point. 6. MR GARY MULVANEY: ERECTION OF GARDEN ROOM TO REAR OF PROPERTY: ETTRICK LODGE, JOHN STREET, HELENSBURGH (REF: 25/00734/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. This application requires the consideration of Members as the Applicant is an elected Member of the Council. The proposal is for a garden room structure to be sited within the private residential curtilage to the rear of a detached dwellinghouse located within the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable with regard to the Development Plan policies and does not give rise to any other material considerations that would warrant a departure from these provisions. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Page 11
Page 12
Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition 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 06.05.2025, 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 1 of 6 – 0536- 004 Rev. A 07.05.2025 Existing Site Plan 2 of 6 – 0536- 003 Rev. A 07.05.2025 Proposed Site Plan 3 of 6 – 0536- 002 Rev. A 28.05.2025 Proposed Floor Plans, Elevations and Details 4 of 6 – 0536- 001 Rev. A 07.05.2025 Cladding Specification 5 of 6 - 07.05.2025 Roof Covering EPDM Specification 6 of 6 - 07.05.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP - Specify Materials Other Than Shown on Plans/Application Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the development shall be completed externally using the following materials unless otherwise alternative materials/material finishes are approved in writing by the planning authority: (i) Roof fascia and soffit trim to be dark grey / anthracite coloured PPC aluminium; (ii) All rainwater goods to be dark grey or black coloured; and (iii) Windows / doors to be dark grey / anthracite coloured PPC aluminium clad. Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate quality, and integrated approach to, external material finishes to ensure that hat the proposed new structure generally respects the Page 12
Page 13
character of existing buildings nearby and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with relevant planning policy. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 June 2025, submitted) * 7. SHORT-TERM LET LICENSING: LICENCE RENEWALS AND REVISION TO STL POLICY Consideration was given to a report recommending amendments to the Council’s Short- term Let (STL) Licensing Policy to reflect the renewal process with three-year licensing and the associated renewal fee. Decision The Committee: 1. Considered and supported the introduction of a three-year renewal period for short- term let licences, the new renewal fees, and revisions to the Council’s Short-term Let Licensing Policy; and 2. Agreed to recommend to Council, approval of these proposals as outlined at 1. above. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 28 May 2025 and Revised Short-term Let Licensing Policy (revised June 2025)) 8. BT PUBLIC TELEPHONE KIOSK REMOVAL CONSULTATION Consideration was given to a report advising of a current consultation BT was undertaking to potentially remove 74 Public Call Boxes across Argyll and Bute. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. to acknowledge this consultation; 2. to delegate power to the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of PPSL Committee, to approve the Officer’s response to BT before the consultation deadline of 12 August 2025 with decisions that are received from impacted communities to Adopt/Retain/Remove Kiosks; and 3. in the event of a Community Council not responding, that the Council should permit removal of any Kiosks within that area. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 6 June 2025, submitted) 9. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS (a) Update on Recent Kilmichael Glassary Parish Church Appeal Decision Page 13
Page 14
A report summarising a decision by Scottish Ministers following an appeal in respect of planning application reference 23/01367/PP was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 June 2025, submitted) (b) Update on Recent Rowan Road Appeal Decision A report summarising a decision by Scottish Ministers following an appeal in respect of planning application reference 22/01986/PPP was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 4 June 2025, submitted) (c) Update on Recent Kirkton Farm Housing (AMSC) Appeal Decision A report summarising a decision by Scottish Ministers following an appeal in respect of planning application reference 23/00144/AMSC was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 2 June 2025, submitted) Page 14
Page 15
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: 24/01882/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Lorne Marshall Proposal: Change of use of land to form timber storage and firewood processing area (part retrospective) Site Address: Na Tri Gleann, Sandbank, Dunoon, PA23 8QS 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 • Change of use of land to form timber storage and firewood processing area (ii) Other specified operations • N/A (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: SEPA Consulted: 08.11.2024 Initial Response: 27.11.2024 Holding Objection – further information required as site possibly subject to flooding. Final Response 31.03.2025 Holding Objection removed as SEPA satisfied with additional information. NO OBJECTIONS. Public Protection Consulted 08.11.2024 Response: 11.11.2024 NO OBJECTIONS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Page 15 Agenda Item 4
Page 16
Note: Further verbal comments received in relation to the Noise Impact Assessment received on 11.03.2025 and they confirmed it was satisfactory. A written comment will be forthcoming. Roads Authority Consulted 08.11.2024 Response: 08.01.2025 NO OBJECTIONS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS (D) HISTORY: 10/00256/TPO - Lopping of 11 no western red cedar trees - Permitted 31.03.2010 93/00101/DET001 – Erection of Dwelling House at Dalinongart Farm – Approved 24.03.1993 94/00125/DET001 – Erection of Dwelling House, livestock building and septic tank at Dalinongart Farm – Approved 27.04.1994 (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application / Dunoon Observer Published: 22.11.2024 Expired 13.12.2024 Neighbour Notification Consulted 11.11.2024 Expired 13.12.2024 2 neighbouring addresses were notified in writing – The Old Dair and Caladh. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 27no. - In Total Received 14no. - Objections 1no. - Neutral comment 12no. – Supporting Neutral 1. Tom Pierson, 1 Ballochyle Cottage, Sandbank, PA23 8RD, 07.01.2025 Support 1. Alastair Baird, 47B Hunter Street, Kirn, PA23 8JR, 02.12.2024 2. Alan Eccles, 2 Dalinlongart Cottage, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 03.12.2024 3. Margaret Eccles, 2 Dalinlongart Cottage, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 03.12.2024 4. Gwyneth Farrell, Bank End House, Thursby, CA5 6QN, 06.12.2024 5. Peter Galliard, Glenshiel, Pier Road, Sandbank, PA23 8QH, 05.12.2024 6. George Humphreys, Haldur, Blairmore, PA23 8TL, 17.12.2024 7. Scott Murray, Sheila's Diner, Cot House Filling Station, PA23 8QS, 02.12.2024 8. Jean Maskell, Dalinlongart Farmhouse, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 04.12.2024 9. Janet Parker, The Byre, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 04.12.2024 & 19.02.2025 Page 16
Page 17
10. John Parker, The Byre, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 19.02.2025 11. David Petro, Glenbahn, Sandbank, PA23 8RD, 06.01.2025 12. Ian Walker, 361 Argyll Street, Dunoon, PA23 7RN, 06.12.2024 Objection 1. Council Member - Cllr William Sinclair, 26.11.2024 2. Clive Black, 12 Dunure Place, Newton Mearns, Glasgow, G77 5TZ, 17.01.2025 3. David Buckley, The Old Mill, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 30.12.2024 4. Gavin Chau, 33 Meadowgrass Gardens, Worsely, Manchester, M28 1PS, 14.01.2025 5. Campbell Gordon, 2 Stronsaul Cottages, Sandbank, Dunoon, PA23 8RD, 15.02.2025 6. Jennifer Harrison, Cottage 4, Ballochyle Farm, Sandbank, PA23 8RD, 08.01.2025 7. Mary Howley, 2 Stronsaul Cottages, Sandbank, Dunoon, PA23 8RD, 15.02.2025 8. Kirsteen Manuel, Ballochyle, Sandbank, PA23 8RD, 08.01.2025 9. Lynn McCloy, 83 Argyll Street, Dunoon, PA23 7DH, 10.01.2025 10. Keith Pitt, 17 Templehill Biew, Glasgow, G61 2QS, 14.01.2025 11. Stephen Softley, The Old Dairy, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 20.11.2024* further 6 representations made (objections) and removal requested. 30.12.2024, 03.01.2025, 04.02.2025, 12.05.2025, 13.05.2025 and 05.08.2025 12. Craig Softley, 105 Collessie Drive, Glasgow, G33 5QD, 29.12.2024 13. Samuel Way, 95 Sandhaven, Sandbank, PA23 8QW, 16.01.2025 14. Jean Woodward, (former resident) The Granary, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, PA23 8QS, 14.01.2025 Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: NEUTRAL • I am aware that Na Tri Gleann is also connected to the Ballochyle Private Water Supply for domestic use. I do not know what use will be made of the private water supply by the proposed firewood processing operation. The supply of water in the short and long term should be taken into account in the determination of this application. Officer Response: There is no stated use of water or noted intention to connect to a water supply for the purpose of the proposed development. SUPPORT Residential Amenity • As close neighbours to the site, we support the application. We have known Na Tri Gleann to be a busy working farm for the past 20 years. We are not aware of noise from wood processing at the site. Noise from the site is infrequent and for short periods. I work from home and am not disturbed. There is often noise from tree harvesting and chain sawing in the surrounding area. Farming and harvesting noises are part of where we live as are farm vehicles and logging wagons. Page 17
Page 18
• There is timber work on the surrounding hills and chainsaw noise is part of living in this rural community. • The site has been a working farm for many years. Since the applicant purchased the property we have not noticed any increase in noise, air pollution, or traffic. • The log processing unit is at the far end of the site and any noise is short and not disruptive. • We accept that we live in a rural area and expect to hear farming and logging activity. • With the exception of one, the current immediate neighbours have been supportive of this application. Officer Response: A consideration of the Operational Management Plan and potential implications for access, road safety, and residential amenity are considered in the assessment below. Economic Development • The business provides a valuable service locally. • I have long used the Applicant’s business and the wood produced is of a good quality. The wood is sustainably sourced and the business helps support local services. • This business provides a vital and sustainable service to the local area and supports the local economy. • The business is ecological in reusing waste timber and this needed and valuable service benefits the local area. • This development is ecologically beneficial in allowing local supply of firewood. • The development has the potential of developing and employing others. • The business provides a service for the local area and may lead to employment opportunities. • The Applicant’s business supplies my business with firewood. This development would be an asset to the local area. • I am a close neighbour to the site. I fully support the application. It is good to see a local agricultural business taking place on farming property and a young entrepreneur trying to make a business. • Great to see someone set up a business locally. Firewood is always in demand. • As a long term customer I have found the wood to be of high quality and sustainably sourced. Officer Response: The Settlement Strategy of the LDP2 (Policy 02 - Outwith Settlement Areas), sustainable development (Policy 04) and the provision of LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development) are considered in the assessment below. Road Safety • The change of use from farm to timber does not alter the size of vehicles attending the site. • As an immediate neighbour I use the same access road as for this site. I have found the Applicant to be respectful of the neighbouring residents in respect to vehicle movement and noise. • Heavy timber lorries attending the site are not a regular occurrence. • We have not noticed any deterioration of the shared access road Page 18
Page 19
Officer Response: A consideration of the Operational Management Plan and potential implications for access and road safety are considered in the assessment below. Other • The Applicant is hard working and considerate and comes from a well- respected local farming family. Officer Response: Noted, although the determination of the application relates to the use of the land, rather than the Applicant. • Many of the objections are either significantly exaggerated or are factually incorrect. Officer Response: Noted. Although without further detail I am unable to comment further. OBJECTIONS Residential Amenity • The development will be sited close to existing dwellinghouses and the noise from the processing will impact the neighbouring residents. • No consideration is given to local residents where extreme amounts of dust will blow towards their homes. • No thought has been given on the noise occurring when neighbouring residents enjoy their garden. • The development will negatively affect the area as it will create noise pollution, light pollution, and air pollution. • The noise from the machinery will disturb local residents, many of whom have retired here for the tranquil and peaceful location. • This is a residential area. There is no consideration for noise pollution, the water-run off, and dust. • I am concerned about noise emanating from the site, particularly in the summer when evenings are lighter. • A change of use to a business such as this changes the residential amenity considerably for the area and will impact negatively on the quality of life of many. • I am particularly concerned about impact on air quality through the dust created from sawing. • Impact of noise pollution as well as the impacts on water quality. • Noise in such a small housing area will upset family life outside like sitting outside. • I wish to object on the grounds of noise, dust, visual impact, transport of HGV on a private road, and smell from the diesel. • There are a number of properties that will be affected by this development • I no longer enjoy visiting my parents at their property adjacent to the site due to the constant cacophony of noise from the site. All you hear is chainsaws, which start before 8am and go on until past 8pm in the spring and summer. The noise makes us unable to spend time in the living room and my young children cannot sleep owing to the constant stimulation. • Living within 50m of this constant noise can cause health issues such as tinnitus. • This impacts the quality of life of my parents Page 19
Page 20
• Noise from chainsaws, circular/band saws and diesel engines running from tractors, tracked caterpillar vehicle, splitter and 44-ton wagon, with continuously running engine. We cannot use our garden or concentrate in our home. There have been days when we have left our home for peace and quiet. The noise carries and makes it difficult to sleep in the early morning. • Our visitors were angry when noise from sawing woke their kids on a Saturday morning. • There has been no attempt at sound proofing the site. • No noise levels or dust control levels have been measured. • There is air pollution from sawdust and diesel fumes from multiple vehicles running at the same time. Officer Comment: A consideration of the Operational Management Plan and potential implications for residential amenity, noise, vibration, and dust are considered in the assessment below. Environmental Health Officer has also provided consultation response(s) to this application and has recommended a number of planning conditions to ensure residential amenity. • We have lost all privacy in our garden with the number of high sided vehicles visiting the site. Officer Response: It is not considered that the occasional access of high sided vehicles to the site above and beyond what would ordinarily be expected for the wider farm site to impede upon privacy. Nonetheless, a consideration of residential amenity is assessed below. • How can a business of this type and scale be considered at such a close distance. • This is an open site, in a residential area with no mitigations evident in the application. Officer Response: Potential implications for residential amenity are considered in the assessment below. • Noise from traffic and road use will disturb local residents Officer Response: The proposed development does not present a significant intensification of vehicular movements to suggest that operational activity would negatively and significantly disturb local residents. • Environmental health and planning Officers attended a pristine sanitised site, non-operating with no sawing or vehicular movements. • Little thought or consideration has been taken for the local residents in locating a commercial/ industrial use next to our homes. Officer Response: An Operational Management Plan, detailed plans, and noise assessment have been submitted by the Applicant. These have been evaluated by the Environmental Health Officer and planning conditions are attached to ensure relevant levels and management processes are adhered to. Page 20
Page 21
• The validity of the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) has been questioned. Officer Response: The authors of the NIA provided a detailed response to the matters raised and have shown that the NIA is competent and has been carried out in line with industry standards. Public Protection have provided verbal confirmation that they find the NIA satisfactory. Road Safety • The private, unmade, unadopted road is very narrow and is within 20m of a public highway. • Owners of the property directly opposite the site entrance will be hampered by vehicles entering and exiting the site. • Parking for current residents is very limited and will cause problems for large commercial vehicles entering the site. • The development will cause more reload traffic and damage, adding to congestion. • The logs are delivered by a 44-ton lorry on a single-track road which is not designed for and not capable of handling this kind of load. This will cause destruction of the roads, verges and banks and disrupt local residents. • The risks to residents and visitors by large plant and haulage entering and exiting on a private road which is not designed for this purpose is concerning. • The road is a private road for access to properties. It is not designed for commercial use. This would disproportionately disadvantage resident in terms of costs to maintain the road. • The approach roads are unsuitable for the large vehicles already using this site. • Many dog walkers use the track between the site and Dalinlongart. The use of large vehicles, such as tractors and trailers and lorries could present a danger to pedestrians and animals. • The narrow turning onto the extremely busy A815 is quite a hidden entrance with little or no signage. • The turning into the farm is a narrow entrance between hedges for such large vehicles. • I am a dog walker and do not need any more traffic and large log lorries on that road as lots of family with kids and dog walkers and cyclists use this. • The entrance to the site and the road leading to it is not designed or suitable to take the heavy vehicles using it due to the tight turn from A815 and the single-track road to the access point. • It is concerning that the increase in heavy traffic poses an increased accident risk to residents and visitors. • The road is already breaking up. Officer Response: A consideration of the Operational Management Plan and potential implications for access and road safety are considered in the assessment below. The Roads Authority have been consulted and have no objections to this application subject to conditions in the interests of road safety. • Although previously a small farm holding, the nature of the change of use also changes the size, scale and weight of commercial vehicles and will contribute to the deterioration of the road. There should be an allowance proposed for maintenance and repair, this should not be the responsibility of the residential community. Page 21
Page 22
Officer Response: In this case, issues concerning the maintenance of the private road is a civil matter between parties. Siting and Design • This development will be an eyesore to local residents Officer Response: Potential visual amenity concerns are addressed in the assessment below. • This site is not only in the wrong location, but is too small for the operations being carried out. Officer Response: The suitability of the site for the proposed use is considered in the assessment below. Change of use of land • The application is for a change of use, but appears to be the establishment of a new business • The existing house was always a residential property with a field used for horses. Officer Response: The application seeks retrospective planning permission for a change of use of land to form timber storage and firewood processing area. • This is not a new business, it is the relocation of an existing business. Officer Response: The application seeks retrospective permission for a change of use of land. • Until 2 years ago I had been a Dalilongart resident for 11 years, overlooking Na Tri Gleann Farm. In these 11 years there was no intense farming. At time sheep or 2-3 horses were kept in a field behind the house. The area in front of the house was a horse paddock. This area is now a wood processing site. Instead of a peaceful rural setting, local residents are now living next to an extremely loud, busy and dusty industrial site. The wood processing site is totally inappropriate. Officer Response: A consideration of the Operational Management Plan and potential implications for noise disturbance, vibration, dust, and residential amenity are considered in detail below. The siting and design of the proposed development is also considered in the assessment below. Economic Development • The LDP2 clearly states the local area designated as Strategic Economic Investment Locations (SEILS) for industry, Business, and Storage. This site does not fall within that designation. • Supporting individuals to set up a business is not a material planning consideration. Page 22
Page 23
Officer Response: This brownfield land is within a designated Countryside area, whereby there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location- as set out in the Local Development Plan (2). • What happens if the site needs to expand? Officer Response: An intensification of the use of the site, beyond the approved plans, operational management plan, and relevant planning conditions would likely require a further application. Biodiversity • The storage of materials, operation and siting of machinery may negatively impact local wildlife. • This is a small scenic area for wildlife and noise will disturb this way of living • I have also noticed a change in fauna surrounding my parent’s property within the past 5 years. I used to notice bats flying around but since the noisy machinery started the population has notably reduced. • No wildlife conditions have been checked. The bats seem to have disappeared from the area. Officer Response: Potential biodiversity implications are considered in the assessment below. To note, no evidence or further material has been submitted to suggest the change of use of the site has negatively contributed to the presence of bats or other species in the local area. Water Supply • This domestic property takes its water from the spring which supplies 15 properties in Dalilongart, Ballochchyle and others. Heavy usage of water by a commercial business could result in problems for others on the system. • The property is connected to a private water supply, which is already at capacity. Have the other water users been notified? Officer Response: There is no stated use of water or noted intention to connect to a water supply for the purpose of the proposed development. Other • Prior to this application the Council’s Planning Department were involved in a dispute over a large barn along the same unadopted road. They concluded at the time that it would not be appropriate to allow heavy plant and machinery use this road. Officer Comment: It is not clear what this comment is in relation to and whether it refers to a validated planning application. Moreover, each case must be assessed on its own merits. • There appears to be a conflict of interest in this application as a prior or current board member is related to someone involved in the application and I strongly object to this application on that matter alone. Officer Comment: It is not clear what this comment refers to. The recommendation made by the Planning Officer is based on the assessment of the material planning considerations of the case, the Local Development Plan (2), and National Planning Framework (4). During the course of this Page 23
Page 24
application process, in excess of ten representations have been made both in support and in objection to the proposal, thus triggering the requirement for the application to be determined by Members at PPSL Committee. • The development would affect house prices for those closest who purchased their homes in good faith in a quiet residential development. Officer Response: House prices are not a material planning consideration • The burdens for the residents clearly state the purposes for which their property may be used and this excludes business use. Officer Response: Title Deeds are beyond the scope of planning control and are not a material planning consideration • There has already been a breach of planning control. This shows a disregard from the Applicant towards its neighbours and disregard for upholding planning procedures. Giving permission now may attract further more serious breaches. Officer Comment: This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action. The retrospective application seeks to regularise the breach in planning control and enables the Planning Authority to manage any operational issues through planning conditions. • The road, verges and entrance to the site are privately owned with a servitude right. I have not been notified as a neighbour or person of interest for this application. Officer Response: Neighbour notification is required only for those dwellings within 20m of the red line boundary. • The entrance is on a private road which leads to an avenue of trees with a Tree Preservation Order. These would not be affected, however I would like to note their importance and proximity to the site. Officer Response: The TPO designation is approximately 87m from the site boundary (edged red). The proposed development has no bearing on the protected trees. • It is concerning to note the complete disregard of multiple stakeholders and planning process. Officer Response: It is not clear what this comment relates to. • What is the future growth plan of the proposed business? This will have an effect on the volume of commercial vehicles, noise, road deterioration and general disruption. • Are these heavy goods vehicles being parked overnight? Officer Response: An Operational Management Plan has been submitted as part of this application and is considered in detail below. Page 24
Page 25
• I am experienced in health and safety in the forestry industry and this site does not seem safe. There is insufficient signage and wood would be propelled onto the adjoining carriageway. Officer Response: The Environmental Health Officer has raised no concerns in this regard. Note there are no objections to the proposal from the Roads Authority. • This road is a private road, owned by Ballochyle Estate. No notice has been sent to her regarding the change of use. The five residents who use the road are responsible for any road repairs. Officer Response: The private ownership and maintenance arrangements for the private road are beyond the scope of this application. It is not considered, given the mixed use of the site, that the occasional timber deliveries to the site presents a significant intensification of use of the road. Neighbour notification is required only for those dwellings within 20m of the red line boundary. (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 The applicant’s agent MH Planning Associates submitted a ‘Supporting Planning Statement’ on 16.10.2024 The applicant’s agent states: 1. “In conclusion it is considered that the application proposal is for exactly the type of small scale rural diversification that is envisaged by Policy 29 of NPF4 and also Policy 02 and Policy 22 of LDP2. Further support can be found in PAN73. 2. The key planning issue will therefore be the potential for there to be adverse impact on residential amenity. Policy 23 of NPF4 and Policy 14 of LDP 2 state that any proposal that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses will be resisted, but that in certain circumstances it may be possible to mitigate any adverse impact by restrictions placed upon the proposed development via planning conditions or legal agreements. Such an approach would strike the appropriate balance and would therefore allow planning permission to be Page 25
Page 26
granted for the continuation of the use of the land for the storage of timber and the processing of firewood.” 3. (iv) A Sustainability Checklist The applicant’s agent MH Planning Associates submitted ‘TN06 Sustainability Checklist’ on 16.10.2024 The applicant’s agent states: • The proposal is for the diversification of the rural economy, supported by the LDP. • The site is brownfield. ☒Yes ☐No • A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: Operational Management Plan dated 22.06.2025 The OMP considers measures to control any possible nuisance factors such as Dust/Sawdust, Noise, Visual Impact and Vibration. The management plan details the operation of the main activities: - Firewood Log Processor - Tractor for operating log processor - Additional Tractor for log stacking - Excavator Works - medium sized excavator/digger is utilised with a revolving cone attachment to size large diameter logs for the log processor - Chainsaw works - To cut a section of log which is unmanageable by the log processor. The max. operational periods of chainsaw use is 1 minute/hr 2 days/week. - Log deliveries - either with an 8-ton trailer load pulled with tractor or an HGV carrying 25-ton loads. Typically, max. 6 x 25-ton loads/annum or max. 19 x 8-ton loads/annum - Log deliveries to customers - weekly mainly a Friday in the winter with light good van with periodic top ups may be necessary throughout the week. The management plan gives details of the sawdust control, visual impact and vibration control for each of the above. In summary the key points to note are: - Sawdust - The sawdust generated from the log processor circular saw action is collected directly via a single outlet pipe into a sealed sack. The sawdust created from the chainsaw is minimalistic due to the infrequent and limited duration of operation – maximum chainsaw use (1 minute/hour combined 1/hour week). There is no sawdust generated when moving on/off site with delivery vehicles. - Visual Impact - The processor, tractors, chainsaw works cannot be seen by residents as it is within a secluded area ☒Yes ☐No Page 26
Page 27
screened mainly by Leylandii dense hedging. Due to the infrequent deliveries to the yard, visual impact from deliveries is not considered as an issue due to a delivery vehicle can only be seen for approx. 20 seconds period when vehicles are turning into the yard off the access road. - Vibration - There is no detection of any vibration from the site when the tractor, log processor, excavator or chainsaw is operational. Timber deliveries into the yard are driven slowly due to a right-angled turn and no prospect of vibration apparent. - Noise control: For noise control details then refer to the Noise Impact Assessment. Occasional use of a chainsaw is required in an emergency type scenario when a log section is unable to be split properly from cone splitter, which is louder than the log processor. Use of chainsaw is to be limited to 60minutes per week in total. Whenever the use of chainsaw is required, a protective solid acoustic reduction barrier will be utilised in the form of an arc, 2 meters high located close by the chainsaw operation which is designed to mitigate any risk of noise pollution however, this will also act as a barrier for any perceived concerns of sawdust traveling out of the working area. The saw area being located at the furthest end of the yard similar to the log processor 75 meters away from nearest resident at Dalinlongart. Hours of operation which includes log processing, deliveries incoming/outgoing will be restricted to 08:00 to 18:00hrs Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00hrs on Saturdays. There will be no operation on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Some weeks will pass by with no processing due to other farming work activities. Operational Frequency Days: (1-2 days weekly for the log processor) average 1 day/week throughout any one calendar year. The noise of a lorry or tractor tuning into the yard to offload is not too different to the traffic noise coming off the nearby A815 main road. Residents at Dalinlongart may only hear a delivery vehicle turning into the yard for approx. 20 seconds due to the entrance to Na- Tri-Gleann being prior to any residential dwellings. Noise Impact Assessment The applicant’s Noise Consultant Bureau Veritas submitted a revised Noise Impact Assessment dated 02.07.2025 to reflect the changes made to the Operational Management Plan and the deployment of mitigation measures such as the use of Herras fencing with 20db acoustic wading attached when the chainsaw is in operation and the installation of solid gates to the entrance of the site again with 20db acoustic wading attached. The gates to be closed when the site is in operation. The NIA considers the use of 4 pieces of equipment in the firewood processing business namely: • Log Processor / Log Processor powered by stationary John Deere 603RTractor • Digger / Takeuchi TB290 Digger with cone splitter Page 27
Page 28
• Tractor / John Deere 460 with front-end fork • Chainsaw / Husqvarna chainsaw NOTE: Dalilongart Farmhouse is a typographical error should read as The Old Dairy, Dalilongart. This was verified by Bureau Veritas in correspondence dated 30.04.2025. The NIA concludes: A baseline noise survey was undertaken on the 27th February 2025 to establish the typical Residual and Background sound levels at the nearest identified sensitive receptors. These were identified as the residential dwellings of Dalilongart Farmhouse to the south-west and Caladh to the north-east. A noise model was prepared using the modelling software CadnaA to predict the impact of the noisy equipment associated with the new firewood processing facility. In-situ measured noise level data was used to build the model. The noise modelling includes the mitigating effects of a Heras fence around the chainsaw area and a 2m gate at the entrance of the site. A conservatively robust assessment was undertaken with all noisy equipment set to be running. The model therefore predicted worst-case, 1-hour noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors which allowed for an assessment in line with BS 4142. A noise impact assessment was conducted for the operational firewood processing facility using the results from the noise modelling study at the nearest residential dwellings. The assessment was undertaken with reference to the guidance provided in BS 4142. The results of the assessment indicated that the Rating Noise Levels would be +3 dB and +7 dB above the Background Sound Levels at Dalilongart Farmhouse and Caladh, respectively. In the context of the assessment, this indicated a low adverse impact for the following reasons: • Dominance of Existing Residual Sound Level: o The existing road traffic noise was 12 dB and 19 dB above the Specific Noise of the firewood processing facility at Dalilongart Farmhouse and Caladh, respectively. o Solely comparing the noise levels against the Background (LA90) does not provide sufficient context as the site is clearly dominated by high road traffic noise. • Compliance with BS 8233 Noise Criteria for Gardens: o The noise criterion in BS 8233 for gardens stipulates a desirable limit of 50 dB over a 16- hour period (07:00 – 23:00). o The calculated Specific Noise Levels were 42 dB and 47 dB at Dalilongart Farmhouse and Caladh, respectively, for the worst- case 1-hour period. o This indicates that the noise criterion for gardens can be met at both locations. • Compliance with BS 8233 Noise Criteria for Internal Noise Levels: Page 28
Page 29
o The calculated internal noise levels with partially open windows were 29.1 dB and 34.2 dB at Dalilongart Farmhouse and Caladh, respectively. o The daytime criterion stipulated in BS 8233 is 35 dB, which is expected to be met even with partially open windows. o Due to the high levels of road traffic noise, the internal noise levels will still be dominated by road traffic. Surrounding Land Use Context: o Na-Tri-Gleann is a working farm, and the surrounding area is farmland, therefore, the use of farming machinery and equipment is not uncommon in the area and some agricultural noise is to be expected. • Operational Considerations: o The noise assessment was based on a worst-case, 1-hour period, with all machinery operational during this time. o In reality, the use of the log processor is only expected to operate for 2 days per week at most, and the remaining machinery is used very sporadically throughout the week. Therefore, for the majority of time, the site will be inactive and quiet. o As there are no permitted activities at more sensitive times of the day (i.e., evenings, night or Sundays), and the impact is considered to be restricted to times when ambient levels are highest, and amenity is less sensitive at these times. (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 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings Page 29
Page 30
NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management (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 • Government Advice – PAN 73 Rural Development • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Economic Development Action Plan Page 30
Page 31
• SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No Planning officers recommend that a pre-determination hearing is not required in respect of this application. In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, Members should consider: • How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance. Representations have been received from 27 parties regarding the proposed development, comprising 14 objections,12 representations of support and 1 neutral comment The determining factors in the assessment of the application are whether the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues introduced by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold Planning Permission. In this instance, the key planning issue is do the proposals have the potential for there to be any adverse impact on the residential amenity of immediate residents. The applicant’s Agents have shown through the submission of a Noise Impact Assessment and an Operational Management Plan that this is not the case. These factors result in a proposal that, subject to the attaching of suitably worded conditions, Page 31
Page 32
is wholly consistent with the provisions of both National and Local Planning Policy. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the information that is available, together with the officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, are sufficiently detailed and robust to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. On this basis, it is not considered that the objections or expressions of support raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • None (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? ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: Page 32
Page 33
☐Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (Case Reference: 24/00129/ENOTH3). The application 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 storage and processing (cutting) of wood is not considered an agricultural use and is a material change of use of the land. As such, a planning application for the change of use of land is required. The proposal has been subject to 27 representations, comprising 14 objections, 1 neutral comment, and 12 supporting comments. Hence the requirement for Committee Approval. One Council Member has objected – Councillor William Sinclair Concern has been raised regarding a variety of matters, including impacts on residential amenity, road safety, public access, landscape and visual amenity, and biodiversity. The proposed development has not been subject to any objection from statutory or non-statutory consultees, including SEPA, the Council’s Roads Service and Public Protection. A noise impact assessment was conducted for the operational firewood processing facility using the results from the noise modelling study at the nearest residential dwellings. The assessment was undertaken with reference to the guidance provided in BS 4142. The NIA shows that the operation of the plant and machinery at the site conforms with and meets BS 8233 Noise Criteria for Gardens and also meets BS 8233 Noise Criteria for Internal Noise Levels in relation to adjacent properties. The site, forms part of a working sheep farm and the proposals are considered to be no more intrusive and disruptive than would normally be found on a working farm in terms of deliveries. However, in terms of the use of machinery such as the log processor and chainsaw, this does raise possible concerns with regard to residential amenity. The use of conditions will secure operational management of these activities such as timings of use of machinery, and other noise mitigation measures to reduce the impact on residential amenity to a satisfactory level. 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. The proposal would benefit the local Page 33
Page 34
economy in accordance with one of the central challenges for Argyll and Bute, that of delivering sustainable economic growth. Consequently, it is recommended that Planning Permission is granted subject to the recommended condition(s) and reasons appended to this report. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance 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: Ronnie Hogg Date: 28.07.2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 06/08/2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 34
Page 35
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01882/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 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. 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 Page 35
Page 36
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 Page 36
Page 37
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 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. Page 37
Page 38
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • National Planning Framework 4 and Policy 34 of Local Development Plan 2 advocate the provision of low or zero-emission vehicle charging points in safe and convenient locations within development sites and the applicant/developer is encouraged to examine the potential for this type of facility within the proposed parking spaces despite an exemption being made in this instance. Prior to the installation of a charging point, the applicant/developer should consult with the Council's Development Management Service and Building Standards Section in Bute and Cowal for advice on whether any Planning Permissions or Building Warrants would be required - https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/contact-planning and https://www.argyll- bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/building-standards/contact-building-standards • All external lighting should be designed in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Light Energy Consumption” 2007, Annexes A and B. Site specific advice may be obtained by contacting the Council’s Public Protection Officers. Page 38
Page 39
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01882/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions, and this will be considered as part of the overall assessment below. 1.2. The key issues for consideration are: • Background / Site Description / The Proposal • Principle of Development • Sense of Place and Sustainable Design • Natural Environment including Biodiversity and Impact on Trees • Residential Amenity and Bad Neighbour Development • Access / Parking and Sustainable Transport • Infrastructure and Services including Waste • Flood Risk and Water Management 2. Background 2.1. The Development Plan for Argyll and Bute now comprises NPF4 adopted February 2023 and LDP2 adopted March 2024. Applications require to be assessed taking both National and Local policy into account but affording precedence to the content of LDP2 where there is any conflict between the two. 2.2. This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (Case Reference: 24/00129/ENOTH3). The application seeks to regularise the change of use of land (previously used as a horse arena) for the storage of timber and processing of firewood. 2.3. The storage and processing (cutting) of wood is not considered an agricultural use and is a material change of use of the land. As such a planning application for the change of use of land is required. 2.4. The business ‘Home-Grown Firewood’ has been trading since 2014 and has been operated by the applicant’s uncle from premises at ‘Rose Cottage’, Hafton, Hunters Quay, Argyll and Bute, PA23 8HP. These premises have the agricultural holding number CPH 68/140/095. Note there is no planning permission for the activity of firewood processing and timber storage at that location, however given that the use has been in operation there for in excess of 10 years the use is exempt from planning control at that site. 2.5. The applicant’s uncle wishes to retire from the business hence the change of location to Na Tri Gleann, Sandbank, Dunoon, Argyll And Bute PA23 8QS 2.6. Na Tri Gleann was formerly used for the stabling of horses and their training. It has the agricultural holding number CPH 68/140/0002. It is also part of a working sheep farm. It forms part of larger agricultural holdings operated by the Page 39
Page 40
Marshall Family. The business ‘Home Grown Firewood’ employs 3 people on a part time basis. Site description 2.7. The red line boundary indicates a parcel of land between the dwellinghouse Na Tri Gleann and the A815. This land has previously been used as a horse arena / ring and is considered brownfield. The wider site, surrounding the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, is farm land. Adjacent to the site, separated by the private road, are a number of dwellings formed from a conversion of the original Dalinlongart Farm. The wider area is characterised as farm land and farming practices. 2.8. The proposed site is located within the development management zone ‘Cowal Countryside Area’ where Policy 02 applies as defined by LDP2. 2.9. The application site is roughly rectangular in shape and occupies an approximate area of some 0.16 ha. 2.10. It is part of a larger triangular shaped site which forms the curtilage of the dwelling with farmland beyond. The adjacent land uses are predominantly agricultural with sporadic rural residential. The site is brownfield given the previous history of the site. 2.11. The facility is served by an existing private road with links to the A815. The speed limit at the junction with the A815 is 60mph. Note traffic is accelerating and decelerating at this point as vehicles enter and exit the 40mph zone at Sandbank. The Proposal 2.12. The application seeks retrospective planning permission to regularise the change of use of land for timber storage and firewood processing. This is a relatively small scale operation, undertaken by the landowner, rather than an industrial scale production. 2.13. The applicant’s agent has submitted a Planning Statement in support of the application together with an Operational Management Plan which details the limited scale of the operation and a Noise Impact Assessment which assess the noise impact on the nearest receptors being the dwellings known as The Old Dairy and Caladh, see Section G above. 2.14. The log processing area where the noise generating (sawing) machinery is sited is to the northernmost area of the site, away from the adjacent dwellinghouses. This area contains a small wooden enclosure with a roof to facilitate the continuation of work in inclement weather. Timber storage/Log Piles (logs to be processed) are located in 2 areas in the yard one adjacent to the dwelling known as Na Tri Gleann and the other at the site entrance. Cut wood is stored adjacent to the Log Pile at the entrance. The wider triangular site is enclosed by mature hedging some 3m high on the southern and western boundary of the application site with a tree belt to the eastern boundary which effectively screens the site from public view apart from the 9m wide entrance to the site. Page 40
Page 41
2.15. A pocket of land remains, not included in the application, between the storage of processed firewood and timber storage. This land is typically used for farm related storage and activity such as farm vehicle parking and storage of hay bales. 2.16. The site is on the whole generally level. Vehicular access and egress is via the existing access point to the facility.There are to be no alterations to the existing servicing and infrastructure provision at the site. 2.17. Given that the ‘chainsaw’ is the noisiest piece of equipment to be used on site the applicant has voluntarily agreed to deploy Heras Fencing in a ‘V’ shape with 20db acoustic wading attached to mitigate any possible noise pollution if and when the ‘chain saw’ has to be deployed. The applicant will also maintain a log of its use. 2.18. In addition to this the applicant has voluntarily agreed to install solid 2m high gates with 20db wading attached to again to mitigate any possible noise pollution and also to visually seal the unit from the public realm when operating. 2.19. Such measures should bring the operation of the facility well within the required standards. 3. Principle of Development 3.1. LDP2 Policy 02 is a key policy which applies to this site. It states that: ‘Within the Countryside Areas there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development where this is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant subject policies. In particular, the following types of development will be supported by the council, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, although such may still be required where there is evidence of any environmental risk: • Previously developed sites” 3.2. Given the site’s previous history of use as a working farm it qualifies as a ‘Previously developed site’ and is therefore policy compliant. 3.3. The proposals also conform to the definition of ‘brownfield’ land given the site’s previous history and use. 3.4. LDP Policy 22 B ii) states ‘On infill, rounding off and redevelopment sites within the Countryside Area ensure developments: a) are of a scale that reflects the character of the area; and b) in the case of industrial development, are situated in non-residential locations i.e. locations where residential use does not predominate, including mixed use areas; and c) avoid greenfield sites if brownfield land is available in close proximity; and d) respect the landscape character.’ 3.5. The site fulfils the above noted tests. 3.6. NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and reduce the need for greenfield development. Page 41
Page 42
3.7. With respect to rural development NPF4 Policy 29 states that development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported whether this includes the diversification of existing businesses and/or involves the production and processing facilities for local produce and materials, for example sawmills, or local food production. 3.8. Government advice in PAN 73 similarly notes that rural diversification helps to broaden the economic activity of rural areas, providing opportunity and creating a more balanced and stable economy. 3.9. In light of the above and given the site’s history, the proposal is deemed acceptable and policy-compliant in principle. 4. Sense of Place and Sustainable Design 4.1. The visual impact of the proposals is considered to be acceptable. The site is effectively hidden from public view given the 3m high hedging to its eastern and southern boundaries with a tree belt to the west. The storing of materials and heights of log piles can be controlled by condition. As such the proposals are concurrent with LDP2 policies 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10. 5. Natural Environment including Biodiversity and Impact on Trees 5.1. NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets including protected sites and species. 5.2. LDP2 Policy 73 states that “Development proposals will be encouraged to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible”. 5.3. The development of the site is an opportunity to enhance the biodiversity and a condition is recommended to secure a suitable scheme of planting and biodiversity enhancement measures in line with the above policies notwithstanding the measures detailed on the drawings submitted with the application. 5.4. LDP2 Policy 77 has a presumption in favour of protecting woodland resources and individual trees. 5.5. It is noted that there are no trees on the development site. However there are trees adjacent to the site on the property’s western boundary. As such a safeguarding condition will be applied. 6. Residential Amenity and Bad Neighbour Development 6.1. NPF4 Policy 14, and Policy 14 ‘Bad Neighbour’ of LDP2 seek to ensure that development proposals maintain amenity and character of a local area. It states that the Council will resist any proposal that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses Page 42
Page 43
resulting from noise, vibration, odour, dust, environmental pollution, or light pollution. 6.2. The closest residential property to the log processing area is Caladh, Sandbank, Dunoon, PA23 8QS which lies some 35m to the west. The property is screened from the application site by the existing 3m hedge. No representations have been received from the residents of Caladh. 6.3. The next nearest residential property to the log processing area is The Old Dairy, Dalinlongart, Sandbank, PA23 8QS which is located in the residential conversion of the Dalinlongart Farm steading buildings. The Old Dairy dwelling is approx. 80m from the log processing area. A garden seating area at the ‘Old Dairy’ is approx. 72m from the log processing area and approx. 7m from the site’s current access gates. The seating area is located behind a 1.5m high wall. The residents of the Old Dairy have objected to the proposals. 6.4. The Noise Impact Assessment concludes: Compliance with BS 8233 Noise Criteria for Gardens: The noise criterion in BS 8233 for gardens stipulates a desirable limit of 50 dB over a 16- hour period (07:00 – 23:00). The calculated Specific Noise Levels were 42 dB and 47 dB at Dalilongart Farmhouse [read Old Dairy] and Caladh, respectively, for the worst-case 1- hour period. This indicates that the noise criterion for gardens can be met at both locations. Compliance with BS 8233 Noise Criteria for Internal Noise Levels: The calculated internal noise levels with partially open windows were 29.1 dB and 34.2 dB at Dalilongart Farmhouse and Caladh, respectively. The daytime criterion stipulated in BS 8233 is 35 dB, which is expected to be met even with partially open windows. Due to the high levels of road traffic noise, the internal noise levels will still be dominated by road traffic. 6.5. The forgoing demonstrates that the proposals are acceptable in terms of operational noise limits. Further it is noted that the applicant has volunteered to deploy additional noise mitigation measures namely to erect Heras Fencing in a ‘V’ shape with 20db acoustic wading attached when the ‘chainsaw’ requires to be used and to keep a log of these instances. Further, to install solid 2m high gates with 20db wading attached at the site’s entrance. The ‘processing of wood’ has the further potential to be a bad neighbour use with regard to dust, vibration and odours from processes. 6.6. In terms of air quality it is considered that the management of the sawdust and dust as described the operational management plan will ensure there is no amenity issues. Page 43
Page 44
6.7. Public Protection have been consulted and have ‘No Objections subject to conditions’ relating to these matters. 6.8. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with above noted policy and can be controlled by suitable conditions. 7. Access / Parking and Sustainable Transport 7.1. NPF4 Policy 13 and LDP2 policies 35 and 39 collectively seek to ensure appropriate infrastructure and that developments are served by a safe means of vehicular access and have an appropriate parking and turning area within the site. 7.2. The development is a ‘sui generis use’ as such the parking standards as set out in LDP2 do not apply. 7.3. However there is to no change to the current vehicle access and parking arrangements. The entrance to the site is approximately 17m from the bellmouth with the A815 and immediately adjacent the driveway/entrance to the Dalinlongart Farmhouse dwellings. A road sign positioned at the bellmouth indicates the road is not a through-road and the access to the site is from a ‘private’ road. 7.4. Several objectors have raised concerns with regard to the use of a private road, its condition and the size of vehicles entering the site. This is a civil matter and outwith the realms of the Planning Acts. 7.5. It is noted from the Operational Management Plan that: Deliveries to the yard are made either with an 8-ton trailer load pulled with a tractor or an HGV carrying 25-ton loads. Typically, max. 6 x 25-ton loads/annum or max. 19 x 8-ton loads/annum. Deliveries from the yard of processed logs occurs once per week (typically Fridays), with the occasional need for top-up deliveries. Deliveries form the yard are made by flatbed van. 7.6. These ‘vehicle movements’ to and from the site are deemed not to be excessive. Roads / Bute and Cowal have offered no objections subject to a condition with regard to maintaining sightlines to the A815 and as such the access, parking arrangements and vehicle movements are deemed acceptable. 7.7. In terms of sustainable travel there are bus stops located at Sandhaven, Sandbank A815 which is some 420m from the site. With regard to bicycling to the facility there is adequate land on site for the storage of bicycles, if required. With regard to electric vehicle charging points these are matters that will be considered fully at the Building Warrant stage. An informative will be added in relation to EV charging points. 7.8. The proposals are deemed to be policy compliant. Page 44
Page 45
8. Infrastructure and Services including Waste 8.1. Policy 18 of NPF4 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure- first approach to land use planning. 8.2. There are no proposals to modify the water supply and the treatment of any foul effluent at the site. The proposals accord with the policy. 8.3. The site is large enough to accommodate on-site waste/recyclable storage areas. A condition will be appended to the decision notice to this effect to ensure that the proposals are compliant with NPF4 Policy 12 and LDP2 Policy 63. 9. Flood Risk and Water Management 9.1. The proposal has been assessed against NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policies 55 and 61 in relation to flooding and sustainable drainage systems. 9.2. Examination of SEPA’s flood maps shows that the northern part of site has medium likelihood of 0.5% chance of flooding per year given its proximity to the water course known as the Little Eachaig River. On this basis SEPA initially lodged a holding objection further to the submission of additional information. The requested information was duly submitted and SEPA withdrew their holding objection on 31.03.2025 satisfied that the site is not at risk of flooding. In addition, the site does not appear on SEPA’s Map of Observed Flood Events. 9.3. It is noted that the applicant has not submitted any information with regard to surface water drainage, as such this information will be secured via condition. Such a condition will be appended to the decision notice and the proposal will therefore align with the above noted policies 10. Conclusion 10.1 Having assessed the development with due regard to the relevant material considerations; no issues have been identified that cannot be resolved by relevant planning conditions. There is, therefore, nothing to restrict a positive recommendation. 10.2 It is considered that the proposal for the change of use of land for timber storage and firewood processing is a suitable proposal which accords with the principles and policies contained within NPF4 and LDP2 and is a proposal which would benefit the local economy in accordance with one of the central challenges for Argyll and Bute, that of delivering sustainable economic growth. 10.3 The proposals are considered to be no more intrusive and disruptive than would normally be found on a working farm in terms of deliveries, however the use of certain machinery may be more disruptive. Consequently, it is recommended that Planning Permission is granted subject to the recommended condition(s) and reasons appended to this report. Page 45
Page 46
Page 46
Page 47
" " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/01882/PP O 1:1,000 0 9.5 194.75 Meters Application Site Page 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
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: 24/01926/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application. Applicant: GB Wind Farm Limited Proposal: Erection of a 120 metre high meteorological mast for a temporary period of up to 4 years Site Address: Land Approximately 2.1 KM North West of Dunoon and 1.5 KM South West of Sandbank 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 • Installation of a 120 metre high meteorological triangular lattice structure with guy wires(for temporary period of 4 years) (ii) Other specified operations • None (B) RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be approved subject to planning conditions recommended within this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Flood Risk Assessor - 06.02.2025 – No objections. The site lies outwith flood risk. The Sprout Burn is located marginally west of the site, before following the steep terrain. West Of Scotland Archaeologist Service - No response Core Paths - No response Page 49 Agenda Item 5
Page 50
Loch Lomond And Trossachs National Park - 20.05.2025 – Comments provided on visual effects and special landscape qualities. The mast lies 4-5km from the National Park communities of Rashfield, Ardbeg, Kilmun and Strone. Views southwards focus across the Holy Loch towards the settlements of Sandbank and Dunoon, the forested lower slopes and open summit of Strone Saul, Eilligan and Bishops Seat. There are no vertical structures on the open summits. In these locations, the tall mast will be noticeable manmade element on the prominent open summit of Strone Saul. There will be direct open views. The mast will be temporary structure for a maximum of 4 years and there will be no permanent effects on the visual amenity. Given the temporary nature of the mast it is considered that there will not be significant effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park. Onsite micro siting should look to avoid visibility from channelled views obtained in a southerly direction from Loch Eck. Roads Bute And Cowal - 28.01.2025 – No objections. The existing access from B836 has adequate width, manoeuvrability and visibility. Local Biodiversity Officer - 02.04.2025 – • 2 Annex 1 habitats (H7130 Blanket Bogs and H4030 European Dry Heaths) • 3 priority peatland habitats (M17, M19, M25) • 4 Scottish Biodiversity List habitats (Upland Heathland, Blanket Bog, Upland Flushes,Fens and Swamps, and Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures) • 3 potential GWDTE communities (M6, M23, M25) • Class 2 peat of depths between 0.5-4.0m. • No protected species will be impacted upon. Noted that the use of micro-siting and bog mats to minimise impact on the environment and this will be reinstated once the mast is removed. I am satisfied with these recommendations to ensure the habitats have minimum impact on them. Environmental Protection Officer (inc. Contaminated Land) - No response Arqiva Ltd - 21.01.2025 – No objections. Arqiva is responsible from providing the transmission network for BBC & ITV along with the majority of radio companies. Tall infrastructure has the potential to block links and we have considered the development and have concluded we have no objections. National Air Traffic Services (NATS) - 16.12.2024 – No objection. The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Ministry Of Defence - 13.01.2025 – No objections In this case the development falls within Low Flying Area 14 (LFA 14), an area within which military aircraft may conduct low level flight training. The addition of a development featuring tall or narrow profile structures such as a meteorological mast in this locality has the potential to introduce a physical obstruction to low flying aircraft operating in the area. To address this impact, and given the location and scale of the development, the MOD require that conditions are added to any consent issued requiring that the development is fitted with aviation safety lighting, and that sufficient data is submitted to ensure that structures can be accurately charted to allow de-confliction. Page 50
Page 51
Highlands And Islands Airports Limited - 23.12.2024 – No objections. This proposal is out-with HIAL's safeguarding criteria. Civil Aviation Authority - No response Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) - 04.03.2025, 19.01.2025, 28.01.2025 and 28.02.2025 - No Objections Ground water dependant terrestrial ecosystems – standard advice provided stating a phase 1 habitat survey should be carried out. Peat – standard advice provided stating a peat mitigation plan should be carried out. NatureScot - 16.01.2025, 23.01.2025 – No Objections. Designated Sites - The mast does not lie within or have connectivity to any designated sites. Within 20km the nearest site is Loch Eck SSSI and Renfrewshire Heights SPA (10.6km) protected for hen harrier. The nature of the Proposal, lack of clear impact pathways and/or distance from these sites is sufficient to determine that there will be no likely significant effect on the SPA, and the objectives of the SSSI designation and the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised. Landscape - It is understood that the proposed meteorological mast is a temporary structure (4 years) and will no longer be required in the event that the associated wind farm is refused. However, it is worth noting that the supporting info lacks detail on the proposed access track specification. The drawing "Plans - Other - Access Route Plan (23rd October 2024)" shows the use of existing forestry tracks with a presumed additional length of track extending beyond the forestry to the site. We recommend that the Applicant consult NatureScot guidance for Constructed Tracks in the Scottish Uplands (2015) and Peatland Action guidance. This is to ensure that the track design (alignment, cut and fill, exploration of temporary track etc) and reinstatement proposals ensure no lasting adverse effects. Ornithology - To minimise collision risk, we advise that bird diverters should be fitted to guy wires and have the following advice to offer regarding the installation and maintenance of bird diverters: • Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) should be attached to all guy wires. This is to avoid birds inadvertently flying to wires supporting the structure, including wires located between the outer wire and the met itself. Stops or clamps should be fitted to all guy wires to prevent the deflectors sliding down the wires. • BFDs should be evenly spaced at 5m intervals. • BFDs should be attached to the guy wires prior to raising the mast and maintained for the life of the mast. • Prior to the commencement of each breeding season (April) BFDs must be inspected to confirm that they are still in place and are functional, and any missing/defective diverters should be replaced or repaired, as necessary. The application contains no information on the intended timing of the mast construction. If construction of the mast is undertaken within the bird breeding season (March – September inclusive) then pre-construction surveys to identify breeding birds should be undertaken and a species protection plan prepared, as necessary. Page 51
Page 52
Peatland - The NatureScot Carbon & Peatland Map 2016 shows that the Proposal (including access route beyond the existing forestry) is located on ‘Class 2 nationally important carbon-rich soils, deep peat and priority peatland habitat’. We would expect micro-siting of the mast structure and access route to avoid sensitive areas based on peat depth and vegetation data to ensure compliance with the NPF4 mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimise damage to sensitive peatland habitat. At present there is insufficient information to assess the potential impact of the Proposal on priority peatland habitat. Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds (RSPB) - No Response (D) HISTORY: 06/01197/DET Erection of 60-metre high wind monitoring mast (for a temporary period of 18 months) at Land 500 metres Northeast of Eilligan, Dunoon Approved 25.07.2006 09/01295/PP Extension of temporary permission for 1 x 60 metre meteorology mast for a further period of 18 months at Allt Mhor Ballochyle Estate, Sandbank Road, Dunoon Approved 06.11.2009 09/00569/DET Construction of wind farm comprising eight turbines, anemometer mast, upgraded access track, internal tracks and ancillary development at Strone Saul Hill, Dunoon Refused 10.08.2010 24/00397/SCOPE Scoping opinion for proposed Section 36 application for Giant's Burn Wind Farm at land approximately 2.1km Northwest of Dunoon and 1.5km Southwest of Sandbank Opinion issued 04.04.2024 24/01411/PP Erection of a 120 metre high meteorological mast for a temporary period of up to 4 years Withdrawn 24.10.2024 (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application Expiry Date: 17.01.2025 Neighbour Notification – No neighbours within 20m of the application site. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Page 52
Page 53
The application at time of writing has received 107 Objections, two submissions in support and no neutral representations. A full list of these is contained at Appendix B of this Report. All third party submissions are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website under the application reference number. (ii) Summary of issues raised by objectors: Objectors on the whole have used a ‘form letter / template’ as produced by a group known as ‘Save Cowal’s Hills’ The form letter raises concerns with regard to the following topics: • TEMPORARY CONSENTS Planning Circular 4/1998 ‘The temporary nature of this structure is not grounds for approval. Planning Circular 4/1998: the use of conditions in planning permissions (paragraph 105) states that: 'the material considerations to which regard must be had in granting any permission are not limited or made different by a decision to make the permission a temporary one. Thus, the reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that a time-limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on the amenity of the area'. A development should be acceptable in its own right — this is not the case in this instance. It is concerning that an application can be considered for a structure of this scale, when its stated purpose is connected to a windfarm whose planning application has not yet been lodged with the Energy Consents Unit.’ Officers Comment: The above noted quote is misleading and has been taken out of context. The full paragraph 105 must be read in the round to understand its import / see below For the avoidance of doubt the applicant has requested a temporary consent 1. Principles applying to Temporary permissions 105. In other cases, in deciding whether a temporary permission is appropriate, three main factors should be taken into account. Firstly, it will rarely be necessary to give a temporary permission to an applicant who wishes to carry out development which conforms with the provision of the development plan. Secondly, it is undesirable to impose a condition requiring the demolition after a stated period of a building that is clearly intended to be permanent. Lastly, the material considerations to which regard must be had in granting any permission are not limited or made different by a decision to make the permission a temporary one. Thus, the reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that a time-limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on the amenity of the area. Where such objections to a development arise they should, if necessary, be met instead by conditions whose requirements will safeguard Page 53
Page 54
amenity. If it is not possible to devise such conditions and the damage to amenity cannot be accepted, then the proper course is to refuse permission. These considerations mean that a temporary permission will normally only be appropriate either where the applicant himself proposes temporary development or when a trial run is needed in order to assess the effect of the development on the area. • VISUAL IMPACT We note that the proposed mast will be 120 metres tall and prominently sited on high ground overlooking the Holy Loch and standing out on the beautiful vista of the approach to Dunoon by ferry. It will be in clear view of users of core paths and other trails in the area. This is entirely inappropriate for a location so close to the Holy Loch, with Cowal and its approach as a gateway to the Highlands, being nationally and internationally renowned for the quality of the landscapes and wildlife. The site is also remarkably close to the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. Just as we will object to giant turbines on the upland backdrop to Dunoon, promoted as 'The Maritime Gateway to the National Park', this mast is totally incongruous with the landscape. The mast will be visible from far and wide. Officers Comment - The applicant has submitted a drawing which details the ‘Theorectical Visibility’ of the structure. It shows the potential visibility of the structure at 1, 3, and 5km The applicant states: ‘Given the height and position of the met mast the theoretical visibility appears to be over a wide area when presented like this, however in practice it is a slim, open lattice structure which isn’t particularly noticeable beyond a few kilometres therefore this figure presents the theoretical visibility out to 5km only. For a local comparison, the Rosneath transmitter above Kilcreggan is 126m tall therefore it is comparable in height as well as being a guyed tower so is fairly similar, however it has more significant apparatus attached to it than a met mast would have therefore the visibility of the met mast would be less than the radio mast overall.’ It is noted than none of the statutory consultees or internal consultees have raised an objection with regard to ‘Visual Impact’ The consultee’s included the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park who concluded ‘Given the temporary nature of the mast, it is considered that there will not be significant effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park’ • LIGHTING …the applicant has failed to detail the likely requirement by the MoD for aviation lighting. This would render the structure even more intrusive in an area so noted for its scenic qualities, and dark skies at night. The upland area's scenic qualities depend to a large degree on its perceived wildness and naturalness — aviation lights are apposite to this. Officers Comment – This matter can be detailed and secured by condition. The applicant has stated ‘…aviation safety lighting requested by the MOD will be infra-red and therefore not visible to the human eye. No other lights would be present on the mast.’ Page 54
Page 55
• IMPACT ON RESIDENTS …The location is the mast is equally close to residential properties in Glenkin, Ardnadam and those in Sandbank (stretching out from Lazaretto Point in each direction). Officers Comment – any impact will be temporal given that the applicant has expressly requested a ‘time limited’ consent and the structure will not be permanent. This matter can be detailed and secured by condition. • CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL ROAD STRUCTURE …In addition, existing forest tracks do not reach the site of the proposed mast, so there would be significant impacts on the landscape in that area in order to build additional road access. Officers Comment – there is no intention to construct ‘additional road access’. The existing road network and forestry tracks are to be utilised for the construction and servicing of the met. mast. Given that the forestry track network terminates short of the site the last 486 m will be traversed with specialist lightweight vehicles and trailers with ‘bog mats’ being used as and when required to protect surfaces. I will be remembered that the met. mast is a lightweight structure that is formed of prefabricated sections that are transported to site and assembled in situ. The Local Roads Officer has raised no objection concluding that the ‘B836 has adequate width, manoeuvrability and visibility. • PEAT … There are areas of peatland around the mast site (of up to 3.1 metres in depth). This is very concerning and although micrositing is mentioned no guarantee of avoiding peatland can be given. The siting will 'aim' to avoid the deepest areas of peatland 'where possible '. Peat instability is mentioned as a risk in the most Page 55
Page 56
recent update from the developer — this is very concerning even with micrositing of 20 metres. Officer’s Comment – the Local Biodiversity officer notes: ‘the following habitats of conservation interests are present on the proposed site: 2 Annex 1 habitats (H7130 Blanket Bogs and H4030 European Dry Heaths) 3 priority peatland habitats (M17, M19, M25) 4 Scottish Biodiversity List habitats (Upland Heathland, Blanket Bog, Upland Flushes, Fens and Swamps, and Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures) 3 potential GWDTE communities (M6, M23, M25) Class 2 peat of depths between 0.5-4.0m. No protected species will be impacted upon. I note that the use of micro-siting and bog mats to minimise impact on the environment and that the site will be reinstated once the mast is removed. I am satisfied with these recommendations to ensure the habitats have minimum impact on them.’ • SCHEDULE 3 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (2013) …In response to the question 'Does the proposal involve a form of development listed in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure(Scotland)) Regulations, 2013). The applicants states that it does not. However, Section (8) of the aforementioned refers to: 'the construction of buildings, operations and use of buildings or land which will (a)affect residential property by reason of fumes, noise, vibration, smoke, artificial lighting, or discharge of any solid or liquid substance Although the applicant has failed to detail the mast structure sufficiently, a mast of this height will require aviation lights, so on the grounds of 'artificial lighting' I wish to challenge this assertion. Officers Comment – the applicant has submitted a drawing ‘General Arrangement of Met Mast ‘ dated 27.06.2024 which adequately details the elements of the met. mast. In addition the applicant’s Design and Access Statement dated 28.03.2025 statement describes fully the construction of the met. mast. Both documents are in the public domain. As noted above under Lighting the applicant states ‘aviation safety lighting requested by the MOD will be infra-red and therefore not visible to the human eye. No other lights would be present on the mast.’ Page 56
Page 57
• ILLUSTRATION AND DETAILS OF MAST CONSTRUCTION AND RISKS FOR ORNITHOLOGY …Regarding the proposed mast itself, there is a note of an 'existing cable' on the attached drawing. It is unclear what 'existing cable' this refers to in that location. Figure 4 regarding the general arrangement of the mast is poor in quality and detail. There is no visual provided of the completed structure to assist members of the public in appraising what the proposed structure will look like. This obfuscates concerns which should be raised about not just the visual impact of the structure, but also the possible threats to birdlife known to frequent the area. Officer’s comments - This matter can be detailed and secured by condition. The applicant has submitted a drawing ‘General Arrangement of Met Mast ‘ dated 27.06.2024 which adequately details the elements of the met. mast. In addition the applicant’s Design and Access Statement dated 28.03.2025 statement describes fully the construction of the met. mast. Both documents are in the public domain. With regard to guy ropes and the protection of birds the applicant states in the Design and Access Statement - …bird diverters wiil be installed along the guy wires, spaced at approximately 10m intervals using UF-resistant nylon to minimize avian collision risk…’ Summary of issues raised by supporters: • This will be an important step in ascertaining the viability of the Wind Farm in this location (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 The applicant Statkraft submitted a Design and Access Statement on 28.03.2025 together with details of Ecological Surveys including Protected Species and Peat Depth Survey. The applicant concludes: ‘In summary, it is considered that the erection of the met mast at the location shown on the accompanying Site Location Plan (Figure 1), is acceptable as it is located within the site of the proposed Giant’s Burn Wind Page 57
Page 58
Farm where surveys have been undertaken that show there will be minimal impact or disturbance. The slim line design and temporary nature of the proposal means that it will not give rise to significant or unacceptable impacts on the surrounding landscape, or create high levels of disturbance to peat.’ (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No ☐Yes ☒No The applicant has submitted a comprehensive Design and Access Statement in lieu of checklists – this is acceptable. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. Ecology Report - Phase 1, NVC and Protected Species Survey (LUC prepared March 2025) Conclusions: The habitats located within the application boundary include M19 blanket bog, M25 wet modified bog and H10 dry heath. Each habitat has varying levels of conservation interest, as shown in Table 1.3. However, due to the temporary nature of the proposals and their limited footprint, it is not anticipated that the Met Mast will negatively impact the habitats within the planning application boundary. However, micro siting will be used to optimise the location of the structure, taking into account environmental constraints such as sensitive habitats and the deepest areas of peat wherever possible. ☒Yes ☐No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application Page 58
Page 59
(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 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place Diverse and Sustainable Economy NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations Page 59
Page 60
• Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No Although the application has attracted 107 letters of objection, 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: • None (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 6.3 - Land capable of use as rough grazings with low quality plants. Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☒Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☐N/A Peat Depth Classification: 0.5-4.0m. 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 Page 60
Page 61
Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☐Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☒Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The proposal is for the erection of a 120m metrological mast which will be sited for a temporary period of up 4 years to gather data in relation to the viability or not of a potential wind farm. 130 people have objected to the siting of the mast raising concerns as detailed above in Section F. Objectors on the whole have used a ‘form letter / template’ as produced by a group known as ‘Save Cowal’s Hills’ The matters raised relate to: • Temporary Consents • Visual Impact • Lighting of Masts • Impact on Residents • Construction of Access Road • Peat • Inaccurate Information No Statutory or Internal Consultee has objected. 1 Council Member has objected – Councillor William Sinclair 1 person has written in support of the application. The relevant material considerations in this instance are: • Settlement Strategy / Principle of Development • Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development • Landscape and Visual Impact • Natural Environment / Peat and Soil Impacts / Environmental & Biodiversity Considerations • Road Network and Associated Transport Matters • Aviation Space / Low Flying Area for Military Aircraft / Safeguarding of Aerodromes Page 61
Page 62
Having assessed the development with due regard to the relevant material considerations, no issues have been identified that cannot be resolved by relevant planning conditions. There is, therefore, nothing to restrict a positive recommendation. Consequently, it is recommended that Planning Permission is granted subject to the recommended condition(s) and reasons appended to this report. For the avoidance of doubt the granting of temporary permission for the erection of this wind monitoring mast does not in any manner imply that the site is considered suitable for a wind farm. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance 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: Ronnie Hogg Date: 31.07.2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 06.08.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 62
Page 63
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01926/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 22.10.2024; 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 Page 63
Page 64
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. 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. Page 64
Page 65
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • The applicant should be advised that the granting of temporary permission for the erection of this wind monitoring mast does not in any manner imply that the site is considered suitable for a wind farm. • Bird Flight Diverters (BFDs) should be attached to all guy wires. This is to avoid birds inadvertently flying to wires supporting the structure, including wires located between the outer wire and the met itself. Stops or clamps should be fitted to all guy wires to prevent the deflectors sliding down the wires. • BFDs should be evenly spaced at 5m intervals. • BFDs should be attached to the guy wires prior to raising the mast and maintained for the life of the mast. • Prior to the commencement of each breeding season (April) BFDs must be inspected to confirm that they are still in place and are functional, and any missing/defective diverters should be replaced or repaired, as necessary. Page 65
Page 66
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: REF: 24/01926/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction Planning permission is sought for the erection of a 120 metre high meteorological mast for a temporary period of up to 4 years. 1.1. The Development Plan for Argyll and Bute now comprises NPF4 adopted February 2023 and LDP2 adopted March 2024. Applications require to be assessed taking both National and Local policy into account but affording precedence to the content of LDP2 where there is any conflict between the two. 1.2. NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions, and this will be considered as part of the overall assessment below. 1.4 The key issues for consideration are: • Settlement Strategy / Principle of Development • Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development • Landscape and Visual Impact • Natural Environment / Peat and Soil Impacts / Environmental & Biodiversity Considerations • Road Network and Associated Transport Matters • Aviation Space / Low Flying Area for Military Aircraft / Safeguarding of Aerodromes 2. Settlement Strategy / Principle of Development 2.1 The application site is situated within an area of remote countryside on land Northwest of Dunoon and Southwest of Sandbank on the hillside of Strone Saul on land at 340m. It is within the ‘Remote Countryside’ Area as designated by the Local Development Plan 2 wherein Policy 02 applies. 2.2 LDP 2 Policy 02 requires that all development proposals outwith settlement boundaries to: “demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity. Where a major development is proposed, or for any development where there is preliminary evidence that there may be such adverse effects (and where a formal environmental impact assessment is not required), a landscape and visual impact assessment, natural heritage assessment, or built and/or cultural heritage assessment may be required. In circumstances where there is otherwise evidence of a risk to the environment (for example flood risk or environmental pollution) other assessments may be required. The need for any such assessments would be determined at the development management stage, generally through pre-planning application processes.” Page 66
Page 67
2.3 In addition, LDP 2 Policy 02 Part B is applicable to ‘Remote Countryside’ Areas states: Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas continued only specific categories of development on appropriate sites will be supported, these comprise of renewable energy related development, telecommunications/digital or other infrastructure, or development directly supporting agriculture, aquaculture or other recognised countryside activity.” 2.4 The proposal will be supporting a renewable energy related development and has specific locational need to be sited at this location. It therefore fits with the specific categories of development as listed in Policy 02 part B and is acceptable in principle. 2.5 NPF4 Policy 9 sets out that development proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the Local Development Plan as is the case in this instance. NPF4 Policy 11 sets out that development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported. It further states that consents for development proposals may be time limited. However, areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. NPF4 Policy 18 also gives support to development proposals which provide (or contribute to) infrastructure in line with that identified as necessary in LDPs and their delivery programmes will be supported. NPF4 Policy 29 also sets out that development proposals that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities and local rural economy will be supported including, in this case, essential infrastructure 2.6 In this case, the proposed mast is a small scale development and is intended to inform the possibility of a wind farm development 2.7 Drawing the above together, the principle of establishing the proposed mast at the site is considered acceptable given that the proposal is in support of renewable energy exploration. However, this is subject to the acceptability of the detailed matters set out below 3. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 3.1 The site occupies a hillside above the settlements of Dunoon and Sandbank and is being sited to gather wind speed and direction to inform the detailed energy yield considerations and turbine selection of the proposed Giant’s Burn Wind Farm. 3.2 The total site area is 1.32ha. 3.3 In terms of design the mast is formed from steel lattice sections and is stablished by a triangular guyed construction. The mast will be 120m in height with a lighting rod above that. The mast will host various anemometer instruments and temperature gauges throughout its structure to measure air velocity, atmospheric pressure and temperature. 3.4 The met mast will be a triangular lattice structure with guy wires extending up to 75m from the base. The mast will be installed on a removable raft foundation with underground steel plates (1.5m x 1.5m) to stabilize the guyed mast. The guy wires, 15 in number, will be anchored using 15 steel plates buried approximately 2m deep Page 67
Page 68
(9 with dimensions of 1.15m x 1.35m, 6 with dimensions of 1.5 x 1.75m). The anchors will be removed during decommissioning. Additionally, bird diverters will be installed along the guy wires, spaced at approximately 5m intervals, using UV- resistant nylon to minimise avian collision risk. 3.5 A micro-siting area allowance of 20m from the met mast base has been requested. The micro-siting area would be used to optimise the location of the mast structure during construction to take account of local ground conditions, access and any other technical or environmental constraints identified following detailed site investigations prior to the commencement of works. 3.6 The mast does not require any permanent foundations as it will be dismantled and removed from the site once the temporary consent has expired or sufficient data has been collected, whichever is sooner. 3.7 An aviation safety light has been requested by the MOD; therefore, the mast will be fitted with MOD accredited Infra-Red (IR) lighting. No lights will be visible to the human eye. 3.8 Planning permission is sought for a limited time of 48 months, after which, the mast will be removed from the site. Any planning permission will run from the date of Commencement of Development rather than the date the mast is erected. 4. Landscape and Visual Impact 4.1 As has been set out above, the application seeks to locate a 120 metre Metrological Mast on a site within a remote countryside location. The development will therefore require to address the policies which apply to such development. 4.2 LDP 2 Policy 02 clarifies, inter alia, that applications : will also be required to demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (either individually or cumulatively) on natural heritage resources, built and/or cultural heritage resources, and landscape and visual amenity... 4.3 LDP 2 Policy 04 which relates to sustainable development requires that; In preparing new development proposals, developers should seek to demonstrate the following sustainable development principles, which the planning authority will also use in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission... Respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; 4.4 LDP 2 Policy 08 in respect of sustainable siting states Each of the following will apply when assessing any proposal for development...... The development should integrate into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment. Particularly careful attention should be given to hilltop, skyline or ridge locations, where development will only be acceptable if such a location cannot be avoided and any significant adverse Page 68
Page 69
landscape and visual effects are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of community wide importance arising from the development proposal, and have been sufficiently mitigated through an environmental impact assessment or landscape and visual impact assessment. 4.5 LDP 2 Policy 10, which sets out the design principles applicable to all development, requires that; “The design of any development must: Demonstrate an understanding of and appropriate response to the proposed development site and wider context including consideration of character” 4.6 The applicant submitted a series of images of the application site detailing the access route, the plateau where development is proposed and views from the same. 4.7 The application site is located out with any national or local landscape designations. The proposal is not considered to give rise to any permanent impact upon the natural or established environment due to the nature of its construction. 4.8 The development is deemed to have a locational need associated with wind resource monitoring for the purposes of a potential wind farm development at the site. 4.9 The applicant has submitted a drawing detailing the Zone of Theoretical Visibility. 4.10 Due to its height it is estimated that it may be seen from a distance of up to 5km/3miles away. The use of a lattice tower which is a relatively open and permeable structure, will give the impression of allowing views through the mast to the adjoining hillside and surrounding hills. 4.11 It is noted than none of the statutory consultees or internal consultees have raised an objection with regard to ‘Visual Impact’. The consultee’s included the Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park who concluded ‘Given the temporary nature of the mast, it is considered that there will not be significant effects on the Special Landscape Qualities of the National Park’ 4.12 It is considered that the slender nature of the mast supported by guywires will not have a significantly adverse effect on the existing landscape given its open lattice structure and the temporary nature of the proposals. 4.13 Further, met. masts are becoming common features in the landscape with 3 similar masts having been granted planning permission in Argyll & Bute in the last 24 months. See planning applications 23/00157/PP, 24/00069/PP and 24/01057PP. 4.14 The mast is required for a temporary period solely for wind monitoring in connection with a prospective wind farm development, hence, it is considered compliant with the relevant provisions of NPF4 Policies 4, 11 and 14; and ABC LDP2 Policies 02, 04, 05, 08, 09 and 10. 5. Natural Environment / Peat and Soil Impacts / Environmental & Biodiversity Considerations Peat and Soil Impacts Page 69
Page 70
5.1 NPF4 Policy 5 seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, to restore peatlands and to minimise disturbance to soils from development. NPF4 Policy 5a states that development proposals will only be supported if they are designed and constructed: 5.2 In accordance with the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding and then minimising the amount of disturbance to soils on undeveloped land; and ii) In a manner that protects soil from damage including from compaction and erosion, and that minimises soil sealing. 5.3 The applicant has stated that: ‘The proposed location for a met mast has been surveyed for peat as part of the Phase 1 peat survey for the proposed Giant’s Burn Wind Farm Depth records for the location indicate that soils are between 0.45m and 3.1m in thickness, and therefore, there are areas of peatland surrounding the proposed met mast location. A 20m micro siting allowance has been proposed, which will be used to optimise the location of the met mast and guy wire to minimise impact on peatland. 5.4 Excavation for the construction of the met mast will be minimal, the met mast will be installed on a removable raft foundation, stabilised by guy wires set to steel anchors buried to a depth of approximately 2m, which will be removed on decommissioning. There will be a total of 15 anchor points, one for each guy wire. Soils will be stripped to avoid cross contamination between distinct horizons. Stripped materials will be side-cast or stockpiled for use in the same area as they are excavated from, or they will be stored in appropriately designed and clearly defined separate stockpiles for re-use elsewhere. 5.5 Access would be taken using low ground pressure vehicles and bog mats where required, and deviations from the indicative route would be minimised to avoid causing damage to sensitive peatland habitat.’ 5.6 Noting the peat depth of the site, and as excavations will be kept to a minimum, it is considered in this instance a peat management plan is not necessary. Careful planning of the route for gaining access to the location, and use of low ground pressure vehicles with bog mats available for crossing areas of wetter ground, would minimise the disturbance of soils, peat and habitats during site activity. Restoration of the site will be controlled by a suitably worded condition. As such the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 5 and LDP2 Policy 79. Environmental & Bio Diversity Considerations 5.7 NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The proposed development is not within any designated site. 5.8 NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks 5.9 The application site is open moorland and no trees will be removed. 5.10 Ecological Surveys including Extended Phase1 Habitat Survey, National Vegitation Classification (NVC) Survey and a Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystem Page 70
Page 71
(GWTDE) were carried out for the application site plus a 250m buffer added to create a relevant Survey Area. This work was undertaken in March 2025. 5.11 No evidence of protected species has been recorded within the ‘Survey Area’. 5.12 The following habitats of conservation interests are present within the ‘Survey Area’: • 2 Annex 1 habitats (H7130 Blanket Bogs and H4030 European Dry Heaths) • Priority peatland habitats (M17, M19, M25) • Scottish Biodiversity List habitats (Upland Heathland, Blanket Bog, Upland Flushes, • Fens and Swamps, and Purple Moor Grass and Rush Pastures) • Potential GWDTE communities (M6, M23, M25) 5.13 Due to the temporary nature of the proposals and their limited footprint, it is not anticipated that the Met Mast will negatively impact the habitats within the survey area. However, micro siting will be used to optimise the location of the structure, taking into account environmental constraints such as sensitive habitats. Given that the intention is to restore the site after use it is not thought necessary to seek biodiversity enhancement of the site. 5.14 Given the nature of the construction of the mast and in particular its guy wires, it has the potential to affect a range of priority bird species in and around the area. A condition will therefore be utilised stipulating that bird flight diverters to be fitted on the mast wires to mitigate any potential collision risk. 5.15 The proposals comply with the policy intentions of NPF4 Policy 3 and 4 together with LDP2 policy 73. 6. Road Network and Associated Transport Matters. 6.1 Access to the met mast location will be taken from the B836 via an existing forestry track of which a small section of 333m requires upgrading. For the final 486m of access there is no existing track as such all terrain vehicles and bog mats will be utilised to access the site location. A 14-tonne excavator will be required to enter and exit the site once. The construction period of the met mast would be approximately 5 working days. 6.2 Given the limited time taken to construct the mast it is not considered that public access to the hills and the site will be significantly restricted. 6.3 There are no objections from the ABC Local Roads Officer who has stated that the access from the B836 is of sufficient width with and has suitable visibility splays to accommodate the transportation needs of the proposals. 6.4 As such the proposal is deemed consistent with the relevant requirements of NPF4 Policy 13 and ABC LDP2 Policies 35, 37 and 39. Page 71
Page 72
7. Aviation Space / Low Flying Area for Military Aircraft / Safeguarding of Aerodromes 7.1 The application has been subject to consultation with National Air Traffic Services (NATS), Ministry Of Defence (MoD), Highlands And Islands Airports Limited, Civil Aviation Authority CAA and the Royal Society For The Protection Of Birds (RSPB). 7.2 Both NATS and Highlands And Islands Airports Limited confirmed the proposal does not conflict with their safeguarding criteria and raised no concerns or objection. 7.3 The MOD highlighted concern that the proposal has the potential to introduce a physical obstruction to low flying aircraft operating in the area but also indicated that this could be addressed through appropriate mitigation in the form of an Aviation Lighting Scheme secured by recommended conditions. This is deemed necessary and therefore appropriate conditions will be applied 7.4 No response has been received from the CAA or RSPB to date to indicate that they have any objection to the proposal. 7.5 The proposal is accordingly considered to be consistent with the requirements of ABC LDP2 Policy 43. 8.0 Conclusion 8.1 Having assessed the development with due regard to the relevant material considerations, no issues have been identified that cannot be resolved by relevant planning conditions. There is, therefore, nothing to restrict a positive recommendation. 8.2 Consequently, it is recommended that Planning Permission is granted subject to the recommended condition(s) and reasons appended to this report. 8.3 For the avoidance of doubt the granting of temporary permission for the erection of this wind monitoring mast does not in any manner imply that the site is considered suitable for a wind farm. Page 72
Page 73
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX B – LIST OF REPRESENTATIONS: REF: 24/01926/PP As of date of report being produced on 31.07.2025. Objection 1. Council Member - Councillor William Sinclair 20.01.2025 2. Carol Chapman 3 Marina View Pier Road Sandbank PA23 8QE 23.12.2024 3. Daniel Gillam 85A Marine Parade Dunoon PA23 8HQ 24.12.2024 4. Mrs Janet Holm Ashburn House Strone Argyll And Bute PA23 8RX 30.12.2024 5. Sheila Mumford 1 Moorfield Road Gourock 04.02.2025 6. Lachrie Macquarie 21.01.2025 7. Mr Graham Revill Strathern Clachaig Argyll And Bute PA23 8RE 10.01.2025 8. Douglas C Forrest Crossburn Shore Road Sandbank Argyll And Bute 15.01.2025 9. Jean Tong Novar Kilmun Dunoon Argyll And Bute 15.01.2025 10. Mary Howley 2 Stronsaul Cottages PA23 8RD 16.01.2025 11. Diane Nicholson 16.01.2025 12. Dr Neil Hammatt Honeysuckle Cottage Clachaig PA23 8RE 16.01.2025 13. Karen Dunn 16.01.2025 14. Marco Pellicci 16.01.2025 15. Gillian Yule 16.01.2025 16. Geoff Evans Seanta PA23 8SD 16.01.2025 17. S M Garrick Glenkin Cottage Sandbank Argyll And Bute PA23 8RD 16.01.2025 18. Sandra Marshall 16.01.2025 19. Caroline Munro 16.01.2025 20. Val Borland The Old Schoolhouse Strone Brae Strone Argyll And Bute 17.01.2025 21. Mr Stephen Softley The Old Dairy Dalinlongart Sandbank Dunoon Argyll And Bute 27.02.2025 22. Ms Joanna Ritchie 6 Balmoral Place Cloch Road Gourock PA19 1AN 17.01.2025 23. Rona Baird 20.01.2025 24. James Weir 153 Alexandra Parade Dunoon Argyll And Bute PA23 8AW 16.01.2025 25. Ms Deborah Smith Rainbows End Blairmore Argyll And Bute PA23 8TJ 16.01.2025 26. Katrina Said 13.01.2025 27. G Yule 101 John Street Dunoon Argyll And Bute PA23 7BN 16.01.2025 28. Miss G Yule 101 John Street Dunoon Argyll And Bute PA23 7BN 16.01.2025 29. Campbell Gordon 2 Stronsaul Cottages Sandbank Argyll And Bute PA23 8RD 15.01.2025 30. Alison Sykora Woodbine 2 Shore Road Kilmun PA23 8SB 20.01.2025 31. L Perrett Bow-Lynn PA23 8PD 20.01.2025 32. Brittany Ferguson 127 Ardenslate Road Kirn Dunoon PA23 8HY 20.01.2025 33. Steven Baird 20.01.2025 34. Mrs Diane Nicholson Eachaig Cottage Clachaig Argyll And Bute PA23 8RE 16.01.2025 35. Mr Thomas Lewis 52A Shore Road Innellan Dunoon Argyll And Bute 16.01.2025 36. Mr Kenneth Logan 153 Alexandra Parade Dunoon Argyll And Bute PA23 8AW 16.01.2025 37. Mrs Rhona Altin Altinev Sandbank Dunoon Argyll And Bute 17.01.2025 38. Mr David Nicholson Eachaig Cottage Clachaig Argyll And Bute PA23 8RE 17.01.2025 39. Gordon Holm Ashburn House Strone Argyll And Bute PA23 8RX 10.01.2025 40. Richard Bedding 133 Ardenslate Road Dunoon PA23 8GZ 15.01.2025 41. Claire Martin-Forest Crossburn Shore Road Sandbank PA23 8QD 15.01.2025 42. Andrew McCormick 26 B Inchinnan Road Paisley Renfrewshire PA3 2RA 15.01.2025 Page 73
Page 74
43. Audrey Cope 15.01.2025 44. Samantha Marshall 15.01.2025 45. Mr David Eaglesham Ardachuidh Colintraive Argyll And Bute PA22 3AR 16.01.2025 46. Chris Bowen The Ferry House, Kilmun, Dunoon PA23 8SB 17.01.2025 47. Marion Bowen The Ferry House Kilmun Dunoon PA23 8SB 17.01.2025 48. Jackie Bushnell 59 Sandhaven Sandbank PA23 8QW 17.01.2025 49. Kristian Scoultz Dunclutha House Midge Lane Strone 17.01.2025 50. Dominica And Gavin King 17.01.2025 51. Susan Le May 17.01.2025 52. Paul Viles Marybank Kilmun PA23 8SE 17.01.2025 53. Fiona Alexander 17.01.2025 54. Steve Oattes 17.01.2025 55. Steve Abbott Riviera, Shore Rd Dunoon Argyll PA23 8TB. 20.01.2025 56. Lorraine Hopkin-Munro 20.01.2025 57. Mike Robinson 59 Sandhaven Sandbank PA23 8QW 20.01.2025 58. Heather Monteith 20.01.2025 59. Marjorie Lowe Burnside Shore Rd Innellan Dunoon Argyll 20.01.2025 60. Johnny Morgan 20.01.2025 61. Scott W 20.01.2025 62. Lynn Gilchrist Marybank Kilmun PA23 8SE 20.01.2025 63. Mary Howley 14.01.2025 64. Mr Thomas McCowan 52 King Street Dunoon Argyll And Bute PA23 7PE 15.01.2025 65. Mr Richard Bedding 133 Ardenslate Road Kirn Argyll And Bute PA23 8GZ 14.01.2025 66. Ms Jayne Tye Rocklea Sandbank Argyll And Bute PA23 8PA 16.01.2025 67. Campbell Gordon 2 Stronsaul Cottages Sandbank Dunoon Argyll And Bute 18.01.2025 68. Mandy Grout The Moorings Shore Road Strone Argyll And Bute 69. Ms Heather Monteith 4 Craignure 30 Shore Road Innellan Argyll And Bute 16.01.2025 70. Mr Mark Jenkins 25 Sandhaven Sandbank Argyll And Bute PA23 8QN 17.01.2025 71. Trevor Ballantyne Hopehill Kilmun Argyll And Bute PA23 8RY 20.01.2025 72. Bill Archibald 17.01.2025 73. K A Garrick Glenkin Cottage Sandbank Argyll And Bute PA23 8RD 21.01.2025 74. Gavin King 21.01.2025 75. Michael Leek Dunclutha House Midge Lane Strone 21.01.2025 76. Janet Lowe Burnside Shore Rd Innellan Dunoon Argyll 21.01.2025 77. Andrew Mumford 14.01.2025 78. Philip Norris Kevington 36 George Street Hunter's Quay Argyll And Bute 14.01.2025 79. Stuart Binnie 14.01.2025 80. Mr Duncan Goldthorp Uisge Soillseach Kilmun Argyll And Bute PA23 8RY 14.01.2025 81. Mrs Margaret Goldthorp Uisge Soillseach Kilmun Argyll And Bute PA23 8RY 14.01.2025 82. Ms E R Thomson Thomson 5 The Meider Toward Argyll And Bute PA23 7UR 06.01.2025 83. Mrs Shelagh Baugh 14 Ferrymans Sandbank Dunoon Argyll And Bute 17.01.2025 84. David Hill 30.05.2025 85. Barbara Howson 30.05.2025 86. Kerry Liddell 27.05.2025 87. Andrew Mumford 27.05.2025 88. Julie Forrester 27.05.2025 89. Marie Burns Ardenholm Sandbank, PA23 8QA 27.05.2025 90. Coby Burns Flat 2 81 Alexandra Parade PA23 8AQ Dunoon 27.05.2025 91. David Burns Flat 2 81 Alexandra Parade PA23 8AQ Dunoon 27.05.2025 Page 74
Page 75
92. Dave Burns 27.05.2025 93. Amanda Ballantyne 28.05.2025 94. Alyssa Ballantyne 28.05.2025 95. Iris Ballantyne 28.05.2025 96. Simon Ballantyne 28.05.2025 97. Shanya Ballantyne 28.05.2025 98. Yvonne Ferguson Rossarden 105 Bullwood Road Dunoon PA23 7QN 28.05.2025 99. Jonathan Hastings 02.06.2025 100. Joanne Young 02.06.2025 101. Emma Graham 02.06.2025 102. Andrew Parr 27.05.2025 103. Mrs Kathie Mclean 1 Eachaig Kilmun Argyll And Bute PA23 8SJ 104. Kevin C J Poole 03.06.2025 105. Catherine Ballantyne 03.06.2025 106. Mrs Viv Hamilton Woodland Cottage Ferry Road Sandbank Argyll And Bute 14.05.2025 107. Alistair Blyth 04.06.2025 Support 1. Mr David Clough 1 Edward Street Dunoon Argyll And Bute PA23 7JF 14.01.2025 Page 75
Page 76
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 77
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/01926/PP O 1:5,000 0 40 8020 Meters Application Site Page 77
Page 78
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 79
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT & ECONOMIC GROWTH 20th August 2025 TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT WEST AILEY, SHORE ROAD, COVE 1. INTRODUCTION This paper recommends a Tree Preservation Order to be confirmed on a Chestnut tree in the garden of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove (Appendix 1 - Location Plan). 2. RECOMMENDATION i) It is recommended that the Tree Preservation Order is confirmed in accordance with Section 160 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for area marked on the attached plan (Appendix 1). 3. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT Argyll and Bute Council, as planning authority, may make a TPO to protect individual tree(s), groups of trees or woodland where it appears expedient in the interest of amenity and/or that the trees/groups of trees/woodland are of cultural or historical significance. Further information on the legislation and procedures can be found in Planning Circular 1/2011: Tree Preservation Order. 4. BACKGROUND An application for Tree Works to fell Chestnut Tree was made on 6th March 2025 (reference 25/00355/TPO). The application has been subject to an objection. There was no Tree Survey Report submitted but reasons for the felling were provided in the application form, but the information was limited so the applicant was requested to provide further information on the trees. The applicant said that they had an estimate to remove the tree from a company 2nd2None who claimed the tree had rot but no tree surgeon report has been submitted. Members considered and approved the serving of a TPO on the chestnut tree at the PPSL meeting of April 2025. The TPO was served and came into effect on 24th April 2025 and there was a period of 28 days allowed for representations to be made. An advert appeared in the local newspaper on 1st May 2025 and a certified copy of the Order was displayed in the Helensburgh Civic Centre for 28 days for public viewing from this date. The TPO must be confirmed before the 24th October 2025 or it expires. 5. REPRESENTATIONS Objection: Owner of Tree Page 79 Agenda Item 6
Page 80
My main concerns with the tree are its proximity to the Calor gas tank which is unable to be relocated and to the boundary of Ferndene. My neighbours are very anxious about the tree to the extent that they offered to buy the land with the tree so that they could control its future. I would feel more comfortable with the TPO if first an assessment of the tree’s health could be made by a professional arborist. They could also advise on any crown work required to enhance the safety and the health of the tree. This would also serve as reassurance to the owners of Ferndene who are very keen to have the tree removed following the large limb of the tree falling into their property during the storm in January. 6. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY None 7. DETAILS OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER Members may recall that the previous report explained that a Chestnut tree was requested for removal. A Tree Assessment using the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Order (TEMPO) method was undertaken by the planning officer without the benefit of any formal arboriculturist report and it was considered that the tree was of significant amenity value to be worthy of TPO. The owner has submitted the above comments regarding concern the tree will fall then it was considered prudent to obtain a Tree Report from a qualified arboriculturist in order to ensure whether the tree poses any danger to nearby properties and is in the poor health as described by the owner and their tree surgeon. The Tree Report (Appendix 2) was commissioned by Argyll and Bute Council and undertaken on June 20205 by Graeme Millar a qualified arboricultural consultant with extensive experience advising clients in relation to trees and safety. He holds a Diploma in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry and is a Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association. The report concludes that the “tree is a lapsed pollard of considerable stature and visual prominence within the local setting. It exhibits signs of physiological stress, including reduced crown density and atypically small leaf dimensions. Structurally, the tree displays multiple high -risk characteristics typical of lapsed pollards including several large limbs arising from previously pollarded heads. A recent major limb failure from a principal union has resulted in a substantial stem wound, reducing overall structural integrity and altering the mechanical load distribution across the crown. Of particular concern is a scaffold limb situated just above the recent failure point, which now extends over a gas storage tank. While this limb currently remains intact, its compromised structural context and the presence of a high - consequence target beneath it significantly elevate the level of risk. Given these factors, prompt removal of the limb is recommended as a necessary safety measure. In addition, a targeted crown reduction of up to 20% is recommended, in accordance with BS3998:2010 guidance for the management of lapsed pollards. The primary aim of the reduction is to lessen wind loading on the weakened lapsed pollard heads, thereby reducing the risk of further structural failure. Longer -term management should involve structured reinspection at 15 -month intervals to monitor crown development, union stability, and wound progression. Supplementary inspections following significant storm events are also recommended to ensure ongoing risk management.” Page 80
Page 81
Despite the mature horse chestnut not being of immaculate condition and in need of crown reduction, it is still healthy enough to merit retention given the visual prominence of the tree in the local setting. The works therefore that would be supported by the council are not full removal but removal of the limb overhanging the gas tank. The owner of the tree has now made a new tree works application that requests the works as recommended in the tree report – crown reduction and removing the overhanging limb and this will be considered at delegated level and the recommendation will be to support these works. The condition of the tree would remain as ‘fair’ and therefore the original score obtained in the tree assessment does not change and the tree still merits being subject to a TPO. The purpose of a TPO is not to impede tree management or insist on tree retention in all circumstances, but rather to prevent undue removal or poor management of valuable trees and if removed, to ensure replacement of a valuable tree. 8. CONCLUSION There is currently a Tree Preservation Order 02/25 in force for the chestnut tree at West Ailey. It is considered that the Chestnut Tree contributes to the immediate streetscape and despite the new information about its health it remains worthy of greater protection that a Tree Preservation Order provides than the protection afforded by the Conservation Area status. This would secure a replacement tree should it be removed for health reasons. 9. RECOMMENDATION i) It is recommended that the Tree Preservation Order is confirmed in accordance with Section 160 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for area marked on the attached plan (Appendix 1). 10. IMPLICATIONS 10.1 Policy – None 10.2 Financial – None 10.3 Legal – None 10.4 HR – None 10.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 10.5.1 Equalities – protected characteristics – None 10.5.2 Socio-economic duty – None 10.5.3 Islands - None 10.6 Risk – None 10.7 Customer Service – None 9.8 Climate Change – None Kirsty Flanagan – Executive Director with Responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Fergus Murray – Head of Development and Economic Growth For Further Information Contact: Kirsty Sweeney – Area Team Leader – 01436 657665 Page 81
Page 82
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 83
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00355/TPO O 1:750 0 7 143.5 Meters Horse Chestnut Tree Page 83
Page 84
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 85
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey June 2025 Page 85
Page 86
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 2 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information: Location: West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN Grid Reference: NS 22267 82104 Survey Details: Surveyor: Graeme Millar Date of Survey: 24 June 2025 Report Details: Project Reference: 101158 Project Title: West Ailey Report Reference: 101158_01 Report Title: Visual Tree Assessment Date of Issue: 26 June 2025 Status: FINAL Client Details: Name: Argyll and Bute Council Address: Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Company Details: Company Name: Terraplan Limited Company No: SC786795 Registered Office: 303 Embroidery Mill, Abbeymill Business Centre, Paisley, PA1 1TJ Tel: 0141 345 2849 Email: info@terraplan.co.uk Web: www.terraplan.co.uk This report has been produced by Terraplan Limited with all due skill and care, in accordance with the terms agreed upon with the Client. The contents of this report are confidential and intended solely for the Client. Terraplan Limited disclaims any liability to third parties who may become aware of this report. Reproduction or modification of any portion of this document is prohibited without the prior written consent of Terraplan Limited. Table of Contents OVERVIEW 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 3 PRELIMINARIES 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................... 4 3 METHODS ............................................................................................................ 4 4 DESK STUDY FINDINGS ................................................................................... 5 VISUAL TREE ASSESSMENT 5 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 6 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 6 7 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................... 7 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD ....................................................... 9 APPENDIX 2. TREE SURVEY PLAN ................................................................ 10 APPENDIX 3. CASCADE CHART FOR TREE QUALITY ASSESSMENT ... 11 APPENDIX 4. KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE ...................................... 12 APPENDIX 5. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................... 13 Page 86
Page 87
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 3 OVERVIEW 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report sets out the findings of a Visual Tree Assessment undertaken by Terraplan Limited, acting on instruction from Argyll and Bute Council, in relation to a mature horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) located within the grounds of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN. The inspection was carried out in accordance with the principles of Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) and was limited to observations made from ground level, without the use of invasive diagnostic equipment. The subject tree is a lapsed pollard of considerable stature and visual prominence within the local setting. It exhibits signs of physiological stress, including reduced crown density and atypically small leaf dimensions. Structurally, the tree displays multiple high-risk characteristics typical of lapsed pollards including several large limbs arising from previously pollarded heads. A recent major limb failure from a principal union has resulted in a substantial stem wound, reducing overall structural integrity and altering the mechanical load distribution across the crown. Of particular concern is a scaffold limb situated just above the recent failure point, which now extends over a gas storage tank. While this limb currently remains intact, its compromised structural context and the presence of a high- consequence target beneath it significantly elevate the level of risk. Given these factors, prompt removal of the limb is recommended as a necessary safety measure. In addition, a targeted crown reduction of up to 20% is recommended, in accordance with BS3998:2010 guidance for the management of lapsed pollards. The primary aim of the reduction is to lessen wind loading on the weakened lapsed pollard heads, thereby reducing the risk of further structural failure. Longer-term management should involve structured reinspection at 15-month intervals to monitor crown development, union stability, and wound progression. Supplementary inspections following significant storm events are also recommended to ensure ongoing risk management. Page 87
Page 88
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 4 PRELIMINARIES 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 2.1 Instruction 2.1.1 Terraplan Limited was instructed by Argyll and Bute Council to produce a Visual Tree Assessment report relating to an individual horse chestnut tree attributable to the grounds of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN. 2.2 Aims and objectives 2.2.1 This report aims to assess the nature, condition, and characteristics of an individual horse chestnut tree found in the grounds of West Ailey, Shore Road, Cove, G84 0NN. 2.2.2 This study seeks to identify any hazards and assess the risks arising from tree defects, while offering management recommendations where necessary to mitigate risks to site users and any adjacent property. 2.3 Author qualifications 2.3.1 Graeme Millar is a qualified arboricultural consultant with extensive experience advising clients in relation to trees and safety. He holds a Higher National Diploma in Arboriculture & Urban Forestry and is a Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association. 2.4 Field study 2.4.1 The field study was conducted on 24 June 2025. The survey quality was not affected by inclement weather. 2.5 Disclaimers 2.5.1 This report has been prepared exclusively for the commissioning client, in accordance with the agreed terms of engagement. No responsibility is accepted for any use or reliance on its content by third parties. 2.5.2 The assessment is based solely on a visual inspection conducted from ground level. No internal, aerial, or below-ground investigations were undertaken unless explicitly stated. Observations and conclusions are confined to the tree's condition as it appeared at the time of inspection and may not remain valid if site conditions or tree health change thereafter. 2.5.3 Terraplan Limited accepts no liability for the implementation, omission, or interpretation of any management recommendations provided herein. Legal responsibility for tree safety and management rests with the landowner and/or those with a duty of care under relevant legislation. 2.5.4 This report identifies visible structural or physiological features that may present risk based on reasonable professional judgement. However, trees are dynamic, living organisms and can suffer from hidden defects or unpredictable failures. As such, no guarantee can be given as to the long-term stability or safety of any tree. 2.5.5 The findings and recommendations are intended to support proportionate and reasonable tree risk management. This report does not constitute a warranty of tree safety, nor does it negate the need for ongoing inspection, monitoring, and maintenance in accordance with best practice. 2.5.6 The Tree Survey Schedule is provided for advisory purposes and does not serve as a specification of works. All tree work should be undertaken by competent, insured arboricultural contractors in accordance with BS3998:2010 and all relevant legislation. 2.5.7 The accompanying Tree Survey Plan identifies the subject tree(s) recorded during the field assessment. Where no topographical survey was supplied, tree positions were plotted using handheld GPS equipment, typically accurate to within ±2.0m, and should be regarded as indicative only. 3 METHODS 3.1 Tree survey 3.1.1 Trees and tree groups were assessed in accordance with the principles of the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) method (Mattheck et al). 3.1.2 Observations were made from ground level only. The survey did not include detailed or invasive investigations. As such, internal decay or defects may not be fully detectable through visual inspection alone. 3.1.3 Trees were measured using diameter tape and a clinometer. Where this was not possible or practical, measurements were estimated. Page 88
Page 89
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 5 3.1.4 The following information was recorded: • Tree / Group No. • Species • Height & Stem Diameter • Crown Spread • Condition • General Observations • Management Recommendations • Estimated Contribution • BS5837 Quality Category 3.2 Tree Survey Plan 3.2.1 Trees and tree groups were plotted on a Tree Survey Plan using a GPS receiver typically accurate to within 2.0m. 3.2.2 Information presented on the Tree Survey Plan includes: • Tree Number • Tree Locations • Crown Extents • BS5837 Quality Category Colour 3.3 Desk study 3.3.1 A desk study was undertaken in conjunction with the field survey to gather information on tree stock. The desk study includes a review of: • Tree Preservation Orders and Conservation Areas 4 DESK STUDY FINDINGS 4.1 Tree Preservation Orders and Conservation Areas 4.1.1 The subject tree is protected by a Tree Preservation Order Ref: 25/00355/TPO1. The subject tree is also found within the Cove and Kilcreggan Conservation Area2. 4.1.2 The felling, lopping, topping or removal of a protected tree requires prior permission from Argyll and Bute Council. 1 Available at: https://portal360.argyll-bute.gov.uk/w2webparts/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=23378228 (Accessed 25 June 2025) 2 Available at: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/conservation-area-maps (Accessed 25 June 2025) Page 89
Page 90
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 6 VISUAL TREE ASSESSMENT 5 FINDINGS 5.1 General description 5.1.1 The subject tree is a mature horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) situated within a residential garden setting, in proximity to a gas storage tank. It stands as a prominent feature within the landscape but exhibits signs of physiological and structural decline. 5.1.2 An initial inspection revealed that the tree presents with somewhat reduced vigour, including slightly sparse crown density and reduced leaf size throughout the upper canopy. These symptoms suggest a degree of physiological stress, potentially associated with age, past pruning practices, and site-related constraints. 5.2 Structural observations 5.2.1 The tree has an upright, broadly spreading crown indicative of a lapsed pollard, with multiple large limbs arising from common pollard heads at approximately 6.0 to 7.0 metres above ground level. As is typical of lapsed pollards, the regrowth limbs have developed with broad attachment angles and limited taper, often forming structurally weak unions due to included bark or insufficient wound-wood formation around the old pollard heads. 5.2.2 A significant scaffold limb recently failed from an older union in the central crown. The failure has resulted in a substantial tear-out wound on the main stem. Given the tree’s age and physiological condition, it is unlikely that this wound will fully occlude, increasing the potential for localised dysfunction and decay over time. However, the main stem remains intact and does not currently warrant internal decay investigation. 5.2.3 A second scaffold limb extends directly above the gas storage tank and emerges just above the union that recently failed. Although it currently appears structurally intact, its point of attachment lies within the same structurally compromised zone. With the removal of the adjacent limb, this section of the crown is now more exposed to wind loading than before. The redistribution of mechanical forces onto neighbouring limbs increases the risk of further failure, particularly where unions are weak or asymmetrical. The proximity of this limb to the gas tank presents a clear risk that requires prompt mitigation. 5.3 Physiological condition 5.3.1 Crown density is somewhat reduced, with lighter-than-average foliage and smaller leaf size, suggesting a decline in vigour. 5.3.2 No active signs of pests or disease were identified at the time of inspection but the physiological indicators point to general stress, likely compounded by the age of the tree and its structural condition. 5.4 Risk evaluation 5.4.1 The recent failure of a large limb from a principal union confirms that the structural integrity of the tree is impaired. The remaining scaffold limb that arises just above the failed union and extends over the gas storage tank is of particular concern due to: • Its origin at a structurally compromised area • The increased likelihood of failure under mechanical stress • The presence of a high-consequence target beneath (the gas storage tank) 5.4.2 The failure has also altered the crown structure and exposed neighbouring limbs to new wind loads. In lapsed pollards, these limbs often arise from weak unions that were not originally formed to bear full canopy load individually. The redistribution of mechanical stress following the loss of a major limb increases the likelihood of further failures, particularly where co-dominant attachments are poorly formed or degraded. 5.4.3 Taking into account the combined factors of physiological stress, altered crown dynamics, known structural failure, and proximity to high-risk infrastructure, immediate intervention, ongoing canopy management and continued monitoring are warranted. 6 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Immediate risk mitigation 6.1.1 The scaffold limb overhanging the gas storage tank should be removed as a priority. This action will eliminate a direct hazard to the infrastructure below and relieve loading on a structurally compromised union. Page 90
Page 91
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 7 6.2 General canopy management 6.2.1 Although the tree is a lapsed pollard, it retains sufficient vitality to tolerate a phased return to a managed form. In accordance with BS 3998:2010, Section 7.10, where a pollard cycle has lapsed, “the crown should instead be reduced to the minimum necessary to fulfil current objectives.” 6.2.2 A full return to the original pollard heads is not recommended at this stage, due to the extent of regrowth and the associated risk of physiological dysfunction and decay. BS 3998 further advises that “even if the stress on an old pollard branch is severe, it should not be cut back to the knuckle, it should instead be shortened by cutting just above a suitable lateral branch.” 6.2.3 On this basis, it is recommended that the crown be reduced by up to 20 percent in the first instance, with particular focus on structurally weak or overloaded limbs to relieve mechanical stress and reduce the risk of further limb failure. All canopy works should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced arborist. 6.3 Long-term management 6.3.1 A structured management regime should be implemented to monitor the tree’s condition and minimise future risk. Formal inspections should be carried out at 15-month intervals to capture seasonal variation. 6.3.2 Each inspection should focus on scaffold unions, crown vigour, and the progression of any significant wounds. In addition, post-storm assessments should be conducted following periods of high wind. 6.3.3 All observations and findings should be recorded to support future decision-making and inform ongoing risk management. 7 STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Nesting birds 7.1.1 Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), nesting birds, along with their nests and eggs, are afforded legal protection. It is a violation of this law to intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy nests. Therefore, tree work should be scheduled outside the typical nesting season (March to September), and a pre-works nesting bird check must always be conducted, regardless of timing. 7.1.2 Should an active nest be discovered, all work that could potentially impact the nest must be suspended until the nesting period has concluded. 7.2 Bats 7.2.1 Bats are protected under Schedule 1 and 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), as well as Schedule 2 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. If the presence of bats is suspected during any tree work on-site, operations must be immediately halted. A licensed bat handler or ecologist should be consulted for guidance. Page 91
Page 92
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 8 7.3 Tree survey schedule KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Prevention of Harm to People: Actions are required to address potential hazards that could cause injury or harm to individuals Prevention of Damage to Property: Actions are required to prevent possible damage to buildings or infrastructure General Canopy Management: Actions are required to address routine management of the tree canopy to promote overall health and longevity TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE Tree / Group No. Species (Scientific name) Height (m) Stem Diameter (mm) Crown Spread N Crown Spread S Crown Spread E Crown Spread W Age Class Condition General Observations Management Recommendations: Prevention of Harm to People Management Recommendations: Prevention of Damage to Property Management Recommendations: General Canopy Management Estimated Remaining Contribution BS5837 Category Individually Recorded Trees T1 Horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum) 17 1190 x1 6 8 8 7 MA F Substantial mature landscape specimen Indicating somewhat depleted vigour with slightly sparse crown density and reduced leaf dimensions Historically pollarded at 6.0m-7.0m now lapsed Significant tear-out wound from 2.0m-4.0m on N sector of upper bole as a result of relatively recent limb failure Scaffold limb arising from just above failure point oversailing gas storage tank __ Prune to remove scaffold limb oversailing gas storage tank (Image 01) Crown reduction up to 20% 20+ B1 Page 92
Page 93
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 9 APPENDICES Appendix 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD Image 01 Tree No. T1 with limb oversailing adjacent gas storage tank and recommended for removal highlighted (red). Also highlighted are the lapsed pollard heads (blue). Image 02 Tree No. T1 from W Image 03 Tree No. T1 from E Page 93
Page 94
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 10 Appendix 2. TREE SURVEY PLAN Page 94
Page 95
Page 95
Page 96
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 11 Appendix 3. CASCADE CHART FOR TREE QUALITY ASSESSMENT Category and definition Criteria (including subcategories where appropriate) TREES UNSUITABLE FOR RETENTION Category U Those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years. • Trees that have a serious, irremediable structural defect such that early loss is expected through collapse or become unviable after removal of other category U trees. • Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, or irreversible overall decline. • Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other nearby trees or trees of very low quality, suppressing adjacent trees of better quality. Note: Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve. 1 Arboricultural Value 2 Landscape Value 3 Cultural Value TREES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION Category A Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years Trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual. Essential components of groups or formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (i.e., dominant/principal trees in an avenue) Trees, groups, or woodlands of particular visual importance as arboricultural and/or landscape features Trees, groups, or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value (e.g., Veteran trees or wood-pasture) Category B Trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years Trees that might be included in the high category, but are downgraded because of impaired condition (e.g., remediable defects or poor past management/storm damage) such that they are unlikely to be suitable for retention beyond 40 years Trees present in numbers usually as groups or woodlands, such that they form distinct landscape features thereby attracting a higher collective rating than they might as individuals, or trees occurring as collectives but situated to make little visual contribution to the wider locality. Trees with measurable conservation or cultural value Category C Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm Unremarkable trees of very limited merit or such impaired condition that they do not qualify in higher categories Trees present in groups or woodlands, but without this conferring on them significantly greater collective landscape value and/or trees offering low or only temporary/transient landscape benefits. Trees with very limited conservation or cultural value Page 96
Page 97
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 12 Appendix 4. KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE Tree Number Tag number attached to the tree and presented on tree survey plans. Previous Tag No. Tag attached to the tree recorded as part of a previous survey Species (Scientific name) Common name and botanical name of tree species. Height (m) Approximate height of the tree given in meters. Stem Diameter (mm) Diameter of the main stem(s) given in millimetres and taken 1.5m above ground level. Crown Spread (m) Directional branch spreads estimated in meters to provide a representative crown shape. Crown Height (m) Crown clearance above ground (recorded in metres). Height (m) and Direction of Lowest Branch Height above ground and direction of lowest viable branch (recorded in metres). RPA Radius (m) The calculated radius of the Root Protection Area of the tree. Age Class YO - Young, EM - Early Mature, MA - Mature, V - Veteran. Condition An overall assessment of the trees physiological and structural condition. G- Good, F- Fair, P- Poor General observations A brief description of the tree. Preliminary Management Recommendations Recommendations for arboricultural works. Estimated Remaining Contribution An estimation on the safe / useful life expectancy of the tree. BS5837 Category The quality category given to a tree in line with BS5837:2012 tree quality assessment. Page 97
Page 98
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 13 Appendix 5. GLOSSARY OF TERMS • A • Age Class: A general indicator of a tree’s stage in life (e.g. young, semi-mature, early-mature, mature, over-mature, veteran). • Amenity Value: The visual, cultural, or ecological value a tree contributes to its surroundings. • Arboricultural Consultant: A tree specialist who advises on tree health, condition, and the implications of development. • Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA): A planning document assessing the effects of proposed development on trees, with guidance on mitigation. • Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS): A report detailing methods to protect trees during construction. • B • Base of Crown (Crown Height): The height above ground at which the tree’s main canopy begins. • Branch Spread: The extent of the canopy measured in four cardinal directions: North, East, South, and West. • C • Canopy: The upper part of the tree comprising the branches and foliage. • Cavities: Hollowed areas in a trunk or branch, often caused by decay, injury, or pruning wounds. • Category (BS5837): A classification of trees according to quality and value (A – high, B – moderate, C – low, U – unsuitable for retention). • CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees): A method to assign monetary value to urban trees based on public benefits. • Clear Stem: The portion of the trunk with no branches, often measured to assess clearance for access or visibility. • Codominant Stems: Two or more stems of roughly equal size and prominence originating from the same point, often with included bark, potentially weakening structural integrity. • Compaction: The compression of soil, typically due to machinery or foot traffic, which reduces air and water permeability and restricts root function. • Conservation Area: A designated area of special architectural or historic interest, where trees above a certain size are legally protected. Notice must be given to the Local Planning Authority before carrying out works to any tree with a stem diameter over 75 mm measured at 1.5 m height. • D • DBH (Diameter at Breast Height): The stem diameter of a tree measured at 1.5 metres above ground level. • Deadwood: Non-living branches or stems, either retained as habitat or removed for safety. • Development Envelope: The proposed area for new structures or works within a site boundary. • Dieback: The progressive death of twigs and branches from the tips inward, often a symptom of decline or stress. • Dominant: A tree or stem that overtops others in the vicinity, receiving the greatest amount of light and exhibiting the most vigorous growth. • E • Estimated Remaining Contribution: An approximate assessment of how long a tree is likely to continue offering benefits in the landscape. • Exclusion Zone: A protected area around a tree (usually defined by the Root Protection Area) within which no construction activity is permitted. • F • Feeder Roots: Fine roots near the soil surface responsible for water and nutrient absorption. • G • Group (of Trees): Trees growing in close proximity and forming a cohesive unit in terms of structure or function, assessed collectively. • H • Height (of Tree): The total vertical distance from ground level to the uppermost point of the tree. • K Page 98
Page 99
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 14 • Knuckle: A swollen, often woody area at the end of a pollarded stem where repeated pruning cuts have been made. It is the traditional point to which regrowth is cut during a pollarding cycle. • L • Lapsed Pollard: A tree that was historically pollarded but has not been maintained on a regular cycle, resulting in large, often poorly attached regrowth that may present structural weaknesses. • Life Expectancy: See Estimated Remaining Contribution. • Lopping: A non-specific term for the removal of branches; not a recommended pruning practice due to potential harm. • M • Monitoring: Ongoing observation of tree condition or protective measures to ensure compliance during development. • Mitigation: Actions taken to reduce the negative impacts of development on trees. • P • Pollarding: A traditional form of pruning where a tree’s upper branches are removed to promote a dense head of regrowth; not suitable for all species. • Preliminary Management Recommendations: Initial guidance given for tree works or monitoring based on current condition and development proposals. • Protection Measures: Controls such as fencing or ground guards to prevent tree damage during works. • Pruning: The selective removal of tree parts to improve structure, safety, or clearance. • R • Root Protection Area (RPA): A layout design tool in BS5837 representing the minimum area around a tree that must be protected to avoid root damage. • Root Plate: The central area of primary roots that provides anchorage; damage here can destabilise the tree. • S • Scaffold Branches: The main structural limbs that support the canopy. • Species (Scientific Name): The Latin botanical name used to accurately identify a tree species (e.g. Fagus sylvatica – Common beech). • Storm Damage: Breakages, uprooting, or structural instability caused by high winds or extreme weather. • Subdominant: A tree or stem that is partially overtopped by others and receives moderate light, showing less vigorous growth than dominant individuals. • Suppressed: A tree growing beneath a dominant canopy, often with limited vigour and distorted form due to shade. • T • Topping: An inappropriate pruning technique involving the indiscriminate removal of branches, often leading to decay or poor regrowth. • Tree Constraints Plan (TCP): A drawing showing tree location, crown spreads, and RPAs in proximity to a proposed site layout. • Tree Preservation Order (TPO): A statutory protection placed on trees that prevents pruning, felling, or other work without written permission from the Local Planning Authority. • Tree Protection Plan (TPP): A drawing showing the layout of fencing and other protective measures to be implemented during development. • Tree Schedule: A table listing key data about each tree surveyed, such as species, height, diameter, condition, and recommended actions. • U • Understorey: Vegetation growing beneath the main canopy layer, including smaller trees, shrubs, and ground flora. • Union (Branch Union): The point at which a branch joins the trunk or another branch. A union may be strong or weak depending on factors such as angle of attachment, presence of included bark, and degree of taper. • Utilities (Underground/Overhead): Infrastructure such as water pipes, electricity cables, or drainage systems that may conflict with tree root systems or canopy spread. • V • Veteran Tree: A tree that, by virtue of age, size, or condition, exhibits features of significant ecological, historical, or cultural interest. • W Page 99
Page 100
Visual Tree Assessment West Ailey 15 • Wind Loading: The force exerted on a tree or its parts by wind. Wind loading increases on remaining limbs following the loss of adjacent branches, particularly in asymmetrical crowns or open-grown trees. • Wound-wood: Tissue that develops around the margin of a pruning cut or injury, forming part of the tree’s natural healing process. Also known as callus or reactive wood. Page 100
Page 101
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth This report is an Update to Members on responses sent to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) on the Section 36 Consultations for the following applications; 1) Killearn Wind Farm Reference Nos: 24/01541/S36 /ECU 00004927 Applicant: Renewable Energy Systems Ltd (RES) Proposals: Development comprising 9 wind turbines up to 180 metres tip height (each generating around 6.6MW) and associated infrastructure And 2) Balliemeanoch Pump Storage Hydro Reference Nos : 24/01324/S36 / ECU00003444 Applicant: Intelligent Land Investments (ILI)(Consultation from Scottish Government) Proposals: Construct a PSH scheme located close to Lochan Airigh. It is approximately 4.4 km to the south of the village of Portsonachan and 9 km northwest of the town of Inveraray. Subject to further design studies it is anticipated that the proposed Development will have an installed electrical generation capacity of up to 1,500 megawatts (MW) and a storage capacity of approximately 45,000 megawatt hours (MWh). _________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to update Members of the submission of two holding objections to the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit in relation to the above referenced S36 consultations. As a point of procedural clarification, these require to be lodged as an objection to the ECU as there is no formal process to allow a “holding objection” even although this is in reality what is intended. It is the intention of Officers to report these applications to Members at a future date when sufficient information has been provided, necessary consultation responses provided (external and internal), and time allowed to produce a report making a properly informed and balanced recommendation to Members. This would also be the case in the event that the ECU determine to pass the cases over to the DPEA. 2.0 DETAIL Applications made for developments with an electricity generating capacity of more that 50MW are considered under s36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The Council is not the decision maker in these circumstances and is a consultee in its capacity as Planning Authority. Where a s36 consent is issued, Scottish Ministers can direct that planning permission be deemed to be granted. Deemed planning permission has broadly the same effect as a normal Page 101 Agenda Item 7
Page 102
planning permission in that it can be subject to conditions, capable of variation and enforced by the Planning Authority. These large-scale energy developments which are covered by the Electricity Act will normally be supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment. In these circumstances, the ECU give the Council four months to consider these proposals. In reaching a view on these consultations, the Planning Authority undertake internal consultations and assess the proposals against the policies of the Development Plan. The Development Plan which currently comprises NPF4 and LDP2 contains policies on a wide range of topics. In many cases, the assessment of these policies requires input from statutory consultees with expert knowledge but as these are s36 applications, it is the ECU that undertakes the consultations. The Planning Authority uses the advice contained within these consultation responses to inform an assessment on whether the proposal would comply with Development Plan policies. Officers consider this is essential in order to undertake a proper assessment of the proposal and reach a view on its acceptability. This is because, as noted earlier, a s36 consultation could eventually result in a deemed planning application which the Planning Authority would need to manage in the same way as a normal planning application including the discharge of conditions and enforcement. While the ECU will consider these issues under the Electricity Act 1989, they are not assessing the proposals against Development Plan policy. It is understood that they will rely largely on the Planning Authority responsible for this issue. It is the aim of officers to ensure that any S36 reports presented to Members have been fully considered with all outstanding matters fully and properly considered in preparing a report and providing a recommendation to Members. The ECU has advised that requests for extensions of more than an additional 4 months, beyond the period already provided for in the regulations, will only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Officers have been advised that extensions requested for the reasons listed below on their own, will not be considered ‘exceptional’: • Consideration of Additional Information or other clarifications • Availability of Planning Committees • Consideration of other Consultee Responses • Resourcing Issues • Technical Expertise If the Council do not respond within the timescale set by the ECU, the Council loses the right to require a public inquiry to be held should it choose to object to the proposal. In order to ensure that this right is not lost, officers are of the view that holding objections require to be submitted to the ECU prior to the deadline for response. 3.0 OUTSTANDING AND UNRESOLVED MATTERS In relation to these two s36 consultations, the following matters are still outstanding and unresolved: 1) Killearn Wind Farm (Holding Objection Submitted 21 May 2025) • Unresolved objection from National Air Traffic Services • Requirement to secure consultation advice from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. Page 102
Page 103
• Requirement to secure visualisation packs for Councillors in advance of committee. 2) Balliemeanoch Pump Storage Hydro The applicants submitted further Environmental Information on 22 May 2025 in response to Objections and concerns received to the initial submissions. At time of writing there have been no further external consultee responses placed on the ECU website. Currently therefore the following matters are outstanding and require to be resolved/considered further before a competent committee report advising Members can be written and presented to PPSL; • Unresolved objection from NatureScot • Unresolved objection from SEPA • Unresolved objection from Dawnfresh • Unresolved objection from SSE • Unresolved objection from Argyll Fisheries Trust • Unresolved objection from RSPB • Unresolved objection from Glenorchy and Innishail Community Council In this instance the reason for submitting this holding objection was that the Council was unable to undertake a proper assessment of the proposal and make a fully informed and competent decision within the previously agreed extended timescale of 28.06.25. 4.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members note: • The submission of these two holding objections to the Energy Consents Unit to safeguard the Council’s position. • That Officers will present a report to PPSL at a future date on each of these S36 applications for their views, as and when it is competent to do so. Author of Report: David Moore Date: 04.08.2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 06.08.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 103
Page 104
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 105
Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE – 20th August 2025 _________________________________________________________________________ UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS Appeal HHA-130-14 - 36, High Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, PA20 0PP relating to High Hedge Application Reference 24/01562/HH Appeal ENA-30-2052 - Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, PA20 0LQ relating to Enforcement Notice served in relation to a garden fence _________________________________________________________________________ (A) INTRODUCTION This report summarises a recent decision by Scottish Ministers following the above application being appealed. (B) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. (C) SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND – 24/01562/HH This appeal refers to high hedge application reference 24/01562/HH for the reduction of height of a boundary hedge to the side of 36 High Road, bordering the property at 34 High Road, Port Bannatyne. The High Hedge Notice was served by the planning authority requiring the whole hedge to be reduced to a height of 3 metres and maintained at that height as a preventative active. The hedge comprises of a row of Leylandii trees alongside the south east boundary wall of 36 High Road to a point beside the house where the variety of species changed. Since the high hedge application was made, most of the Leylandii has been cut to a consistent height of 3m and some branches of the Dawn Redwood facing 34 High Road have been cut but the Dawn Redwood the Red Escallonia, Leylandii trees, Yew trees remain above the required 3m height. The appeal was made on the grounds that the Dawn Redwood in particular should be removed from the High Hedge Notice. An appeal was subsequently submitted to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (PEAD), with the Reporter undertaking an accompanied site visit on the 17th June 2025. SCOTTISH MINISTERS’ DECISION – 24/01562/HH Scottish Ministers dismissed the appeal and concluded that the High Hedge Notice takes effect on the date of their decision (8th July 2025). In summary the key points are as follows: • In relation to the part of the hedge that was not cut back, the Reporter states it “would likely block direct sunlight in particular over the primary access to 34 High Road and its garden, and would be likely to somewhat reduce ambient light levels for the facing habitable rooms (including for 32 and 34 High Road).” And then Page 105 Agenda Item 8
Page 106
states “consider that the portion of hedge not yet reduced in height would be likely to have an adverse effect on the reasonable enjoyment of 34 High Road, and the facing habitable rooms of 32 High Road.” • The Reporter examined the impact on the conservation area and concluded that “I observed more distant views of the Dawn Redwood from the road parallel to the gardens to the south east. I consider the backdrop of the buildings at 34 and 36 High Road, and the heavily wooded area to the west of the appeal site are significant features in the area. It is difficult to discern at distance which canopy is the Dawn Redwood, and which is the fir tree that does not form part of the hedge. Given these factors, I consider removal of the Dawn Redwood would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the character of the conservation area.” • The conclusion is that “the hedge includes the Dawn Redwood and Red Escallonia and is a high hedge adversely affecting the reasonable enjoyment of 34 High Road. As a result, I find that not all of the initial action has yet been completed and therefore I conclude that the high hedge notice should be confirmed without variation.” Full details of the appeal documents and decision can be viewed on the PEAD website under the reference PPA-130-14: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details (D) SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND – Enforcement Notice 23/00012/ENFHSH This appeal relates to an Enforcement Notice that was served on Flat 2, 3 Shore Road, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute, PA20 0LQ to require the reduction of a fence which was unauthorised and is located within a Conservation Area and in the grounds of a listed building. The fence subject to this Enforcement Notice is in the rear garden of 3 Shore Road, a flatted property but the fence is within 20m of a road – High Road, Port Bannatyne which runs behind the property and is in excess of 1m and it is also within the curtilage of a Listed Building (3 Shore Road C-Listed) and therefore does not benefit from permitted development rights under this Class. The fence was erected without the benefit of planning permission and is in breach of planning control. Planning permission was retrospectively applied for (reference 24/00925/PP) and refused and then an appeal made to the Local Review Body (reference 25/0001/LRB) where the planning decision was upheld. Following the refusal, an Enforcement Notice was issued on 6th March 2025 requiring the reduction of the fence to 1m in height. SCOTTISH MINISTERS DECISION – ENA-30-2052 Scottish Ministers dismissed the appeal and concluded that the Enforcement Notice is varied to allow so it takes effect 3 months from the date of the decision. In summary the key points are as follows: • The reporter did not dispute that the fence was unauthorised and did not have the benefit of planning permission or permitted development. Page 106
Page 107
• The reporter did not dispute that the fence had been in situ for less than 4 years so was not lawful. • In terms of harm to the amenity, the reporter stated that “although the land to the rear of the listed building is divided by a substantial hedge adjoining the parking area, it otherwise retains an open character with garden strips for individual properties. I observed one garden strip to be enclosed by a low fence that would not restrict views in.” And goes on to say they “observed the fence subject to this appeal to be solid, partially blocking views of a listed church to the north west. The solid style, height and extent of the fence mean it is imposing and dominant in the land to the rear of the listed building, creating a stronger sense of enclosure to the west side of that land. This would be detrimental to the otherwise open character of that land and therefore detrimental to the setting of the listed church and listed property related to that land. The visual dominance of the fence and greater enclosure would be detrimental to the open amenity of the adjacent garden strip.” • In turn the reporter found the required action would not exceed what is necessary to remedy the breach and as a result it is not excessive. The report also found that the appellant’s personal circumstances are not sufficient justification to set aside the breach or injury to amenity. Full details of the appeal documents and decision can be viewed on the PEAD website under the reference ENA-30-2052: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details (E) IMPLICATIONS Policy: None Financial: None Personnel: None Equal Opportunities: None Authors and Contact Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 107
Page 108
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 109
Document is Restricted Page 109 Agenda Item 9NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 110
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 111
Document is Restricted Page 115 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 112
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 113
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 114
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 115
Document is Restricted Page 119 NOT 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 123 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 133 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
Page 121
Document is Restricted Page 135 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 122
This page is intentionally left blank