Update on Recent Kirkton Farm Housing (AMSC) Appeal Decision
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 June 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 18 June 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
7 Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (18.06.25) UPDATE ON RECENT KIRKTON FARM HOUSING (AMSC) APPEAL DECISION _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 23/00144/AMSC DPEA REFERENCE: PPA-130-2093 CASE DETAIL: Application for approval 23/00144/AMSC dated 30 January 2023 under conditions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 of planning permission in principle reference 18/01444/PP (PPA-130-2071) refused by notice dated 8 October 2024 SITE ADDRESS: Land North of Cardross Primary School, Barrs Road, Cardross APPLICANT: Cala Management Limited STATUS: Appeal Allowed by decision dated 31 March 2025 _______________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Members may recall that this application was subject to a hearing at which Members determined that all submissions were acceptable, except for the matters relating to flooding and drainage as required to be submitted for approval by condition 11. All other matters were agreed as being acceptable by Members. 1.2 As a consequence of these concerns, Argyll & Bute Council refused this application and an appeal was lodged against this decision by the applicant. 1.3 This report summarises the decision made by the Reporter appointed by the DPEA 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report. 3. REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS (Extracts from Appeal Decision) 3.1 The flood study estimates that the peak flow from the ‘third pipe’ (originating from Kilmahew Avenue) would generate a peak flow of 155 litres per second, which would represent 0.6% of the design flow of the Geilston Burn. The study concludes that this would bring no increased flood risk to existing properties. Given the relative sizes of the catchment area of the Geilston Burn (stated to be 7.2 square kilometres with only a very small proportion being downstream of the site) and of the much smaller Kilmahew Avenue/ Court estate, it does seem inevitable that any flows from the latter must contribute only a very small proportion of overall flow in the Geilston Burn. The photograph of the Geilston Burn in spate that has been submitted does show some overtopping of the river bank but does not demonstrate that flood waters approached the level of The Glen property itself. 3.2 Regarding other matters raised in representations, I do not consider that the
Page 2
8 Classification: OFFICIAL discharge of drainage water would constitute development in a flood risk area and so be contrary to NPF4. I am satisfied that the calculations in appendix D of the appellant’s Drainage Strategy Report are reasonably concerned with the drainage of the appeal site itself and the successful operation of its SUDS system and are not intended to address flows in the ‘third pipe’. It is not my role to conduct a comparative study of the different drainage options that may be available, but to assess the suitability of the arrangements being proposed by the appellant. The need or otherwise to gain the landowner’s consent to discharge waters into the Mill Dam pond is a legal matter not pertinent to this decision. 3.3 As regards drainage, I find that the submissions demonstrate to my satisfaction that the development will not increase the risk of off-site surface water flooding, and that it therefore complies with NPF4 Policy 22(c) in this regard. Surface water arising on the appeal site is managed through SUDS as required by LDP Policy 61. I do not consider that this policy requires the appellant to manage the water arising from the existing Kilmahew Avenue estate. The council’s professional advisors on flooding matters are content that the appellant’s submissions meet the required technical standards. The professional evidence before me therefore firmly favours the appellant’s position. Overall, I conclude that the requirements of condition 11 have been satisfied. 3.4 As regards the discharge of the conditions other than condition 11, I note that the council and professional consultees are satisfied that the submitted details are acceptable. I have also considered these matters, and I am content that the provisions of conditions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 have been satisfactorily met. 3.5 A separate claim for expenses was made by the applicant but not upheld by the Reporter who concluded on this matter that the committee’s views may have been informed not only by its professional advisors, but also by detailed representations from members of the public and the community council. While ultimately, he preferred the professional evidence before him on these matters, he nevertheless did not consider it was unreasonable of the council to take into consideration these other views in reaching its position as to the suitability of the drainage strategy and the flood study. The Reporter also commented that, “ 6. It is clear from the wording of the reasons for refusal that the council’s concerns were focussed on the role of the Mill Dam pond and the potential for flooding at ‘The Glen’. In my main decision I have concluded that these concerns are unfounded, and in particular that the pond does not play any particular role in attenuating water flows. However, the council points out that the clearest evidence regarding the role of the pond has only been produced by the appellant as part of this appeal and was not available to the council at the time of its decision. 7. I consider it was reasonable for the appellant to produce this information (including in the Drainage Summary Statement of December 2024) at the appeal stage, in response to the concerns raised by the council. However, it was the Drainage Strategy Report and the Geilston Burn Flood Study that were the main pieces of evidence before the committee (and which were intended to directly respond to the requirements of condition 11). These make only passing mentions of the pond. In these circumstances, I do not consider it was unreasonable for the committee to have had concerns about the role of the pond that might have led it to take a different view from its professional advisors” Full details of the case can be found at the following link:
Page 3
9 Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details 4.0 IMPLICATIONS Policy: None. Financial: None. Legal: None HR: None Fairer Scotland Duty: None Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None Socio-economic Duty: None Islands: None Climate Change: None – the proposal has been refused. Risk: None Customer Service: None The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): None Author: David Moore Date: 02.06.25 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth