Agenda reports pack
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
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 605522 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 11 June 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 JUNE 2025 at 11:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 May 2025 (Pages 3 - 6) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2025 at 11.00 am (Pages 7 - 14) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2025 at 2.30 pm (Pages 15 - 16) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 May 2025 at 3.30 pm (Pages 17 - 22) (e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 26 May 2025 at 10.00 am (Pages 23 - 28) (f) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 26 May 2025 at 2.00 pm (Pages 29 - 32) 4. DOWNING RENEWABLE DEVELOPMENTS: INSTALLATION OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: LAND WEST OF TAYNUILT SUBSTATION, TAYNUILT (REF: 24/02083/PP) (Pages 33 - 68) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
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) (Pages 69 - 112) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. MR GARY MULVANEY: ERECTION OF GARDEN ROOM TO REAR OF PROPERTY: ETTRICK LODGE, JOHN STREET, HELENSBURGH (REF: 25/00734/PP) (Pages 113 - 126) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth * 7. SHORT-TERM LET LICENSING: LICENCE RENEWALS AND REVISION TO STL POLICY (Pages 127 - 170) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 8. BT PUBLIC TELEPHONE KIOSK REMOVAL CONSULTATION (Pages 171 - 194) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORTS FOR NOTING 9. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS (a) Update on Recent Kilmichael Glassary Parish Church Appeal Decision (Pages 195 - 198) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth (b) Update on Recent Rowan Road Appeal Decision (Pages 199 - 202) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth (c) Update on Recent Kirkton Farm Housing (AMSC) Appeal Decision (Pages 203 - 206) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Items marked with an “asterisk” are items, on the basis of information available at the time this Agenda is published, on which the Committee may not have delegated powers to act, and which may therefore require to be referred to the Council or another Committee, and that referral may depend on the decision reached at the meeting. 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 FRIDAY, 16 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Morgan Romilly, Applicant Agnes Gough, Objector Allan McCandlish, Objector Steve McIntyre-Stewart, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following 2 items of business on the grounds that they were likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF PRIVATE HIRE CAR LICENCES The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For these hearings the Applicant opted to proceed by way of telephone call and Morgan Romilly joined the meeting by telephone. Steve McIntyre-Stewart, Objector opted to proceed by way of telephone call and joined the meeting by telephone. Allan McCandlish, Objector opted to proceed by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Agnes Gough, Objector also opted to proceed by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. There were 2 Private Hire Licence Applications before the Committee for consideration and before proceeding the Chair invited the Legal Manager to provide an update to the Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Committee regarding late objections received in respect of each application and the procedure for dealing with these was followed. The Committee agreed that sufficient reason for the submission of the late objections had been established and they agreed to accept these into the process. A copy of the late objections were circulated to the Committee. A short adjournment was taken at 10.15 am to allow the Committee to read the late objections. The Committee reconvened at 10.25 am. (a) Tartan Wolf Group, Cove, Helensburgh (Nissan Leaf - T400 WLF) The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and thereafter invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT The Applicant spoke to support of his application. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Objectors were given the opportunity of asking the Applicant questions. OBJECTORS Each objector in turn advised of their objections to this Application. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT The Applicant was given the opportunity of asking the Objectors questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS The Members were given the opportunity to ask the Applicant and Objectors questions. SUMMING UP Objectors The Objectors were given the opportunity to sum up. Applicant The Applicant was given the opportunity to sum up When asked, the Applicant confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. Mr McInyre-Stewart stated he felt he had not received a fair hearing due to not being able to get his message across to the Committee. Page 4
Page 5
Mr McCandlish confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. Ms Gough stated that she felt she had not had the opportunity to make all of her points but confirmed that due procedure had been followed. DEBATE The Members of the Committee debated the Application before them. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Romilly and noted that he would receive written notification of this decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted; and late objections, tabled) (b) Tartan Wolf Group, Cove, Helensburgh (Skoda Superb - T555 WLF) The Chair confirmed that all parties understood the procedure and thereafter invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT The Applicant spoke in support of his application. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Objectors were given the opportunity of asking the Applicant questions. OBJECTORS Each objector in turn advised of their objections to this Application. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT The Applicant was given the opportunity of asking the Objectors questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS The Members were given the opportunity to ask the Applicant and Objectors questions. SUMMING UP Objectors The Objectors were given the opportunity to sum up. Applicant The Applicant was given the opportunity to sum up Page 5
Page 6
When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE The Members of the Committee debated the Application before them. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Romilly and noted that he would receive written notification of this decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted; and late objections, tabled) Page 6
Page 7
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart Mclean, Committee Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader Stuart Ramsay, Senior Planning Officer Emma Shaw, Planning Officer Emma Jane, Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Andrew Kain declared a financial interest in planning application reference 23/01938/PP as he was the Applicant. He left the meeting and took no part in the consideration of this application which is dealt with at item 4 of this Minute. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 23 April 2025 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 23 April 2025 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. Having declared an interest in the following application, Councillor Andrew Kain left the meeting at this point. 4. MR AND MRS A KAIN: ALTERATIONS TO DWELLINGHOUSE, ERECTION OF EXTENSIONS AND INSTALLATION OF DORMER WINDOW: FAIRWAYS LODGE, ERRAY ROAD, TOBERMORY, ISLE OF MULL (REF: 23/01938/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and advised that this application is before the Committee as the Applicant is an elected Member of the Council. In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDPS2, the site is identified as being within the defined Settlement Area of Tobermory. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and National Planning Framework 4 and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to Page 7 Agenda Item 3b
Page 8
indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. It was recommended that planning permission be 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) 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 03.10.2023, 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 Existing Plans and Elevations 200 04.10.2023 Site & Location Plan 100 04.10.2023 Proposed Plans & Elevations 201 A 27.03.2025 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Submission of Details of Materials Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until written details of the type and colour of materials to be used in the construction of the external walls and roof coverings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings. 3. General Restriction of Use The land and premises to which this permission relates shall only be used as a single dwellinghouse with a maximum of two bedrooms being let to provide incedental bed and breakfast accommodation at any one time and for no other use including any other purpose in Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 and the General Permitted Development Order 1992 (as amended). Page 8
Page 9
Reason: For the purpose of clarity and to enable the Planning Authority to control any subsequent change of use which might otherwise benefit from deemed permission in order to protect the amenity of the locale. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 30 April 2025, submitted) Councillor Kain returned to the meeting at this point. 5. LORNE THOMSON: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO VEHICLE PARKING/STORAGE, INCLUDING LAYING OF HARDCORE, ERECTION OF BOUNDARY WALL AND FORMATION OF ACCESS (PART RETROSPECTIVE): LAND WEST OF BT TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GARELOCHHEAD (REF: 24/01249/PP) The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of supplementary reports number 2 and 3. At a discretionary hearing of the PPSL Committee on 9 April 2025 this application was approved subject to the addition of appropriate conditions and reasons being delegated to the Head of Development and Economic Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee. The Chair considered it would be most appropriate to refer the matter back to the Committee in order that those who were in favour of the development going ahead could offer comment on the conditions suggested. These draft conditions, set out in supplementary report 3, were before the Members for consideration. Only those Members present today that attended the discretionary hearing could take part in the consideration of these conditions. Decision The Committee agreed the following conditions and reasons be attached to planning permission reference 24/01249/PP: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated; 1st July 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 Page 9
Page 10
Location Plan 2024_0023_00A 22.08.2024 Existing Site Plan 2024_0023_01A 22.08.2024 Proposed Site/Landscape Plan 2413.03 101 01.07.2024 Topographical Survey 01.07.2024 Visualisation of Boundary Wall 02.08.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Operational use There shall be no more than 30 cars on the site at any time, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority and no individual car shall remain on the site for a continuous period of more than a year. A register of all cars stored for longer than a month including their registration numbers, dates the car was placed on the site and left the site shall be maintained by the Site Owner and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to define the limits of the permission and to ensure cars are not abandoned on site for over a year and become unsightly. 3. PP – Environmental Management Plan No development shall commence on the laying of the car park surfacing or hard landscaping until a full site specific Environmental Management Plan (in the form of a proposed Construction Procedures Handbook) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Plan shall address requirements arising from the construction of the car storage area and, shall inform the production of construction method statements, and shall specify the siting of working areas, soil management practices, measures to prevent pollution of watercourses and environmental site monitoring. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the requirements of the duly approved Construction Procedures Handbook, copies of which shall be maintained available on site for the duration of construction works. Reason: In the interests of pollution control. 4. PP - Junction with public road: Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/005B; and visibility splays of 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres measured from the edge of the carriageway. The first 3m of the access shall be surfaced with a bound material and be a width of 3.6m, increasing to 3.7m if bound by walls in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to any car park formation construction works being undertaken the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the Page 10
Page 11
visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and car being stored on site and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to Applicant: • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. • The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. 5. Pedestrian Visibility and Gates Any access gates should be sited at least 6 metres from the rear of the footway and must be hung so that they do not open towards the carriageway and pedestrian visibility splay of 2.4 m x 2.4 x 0.9m measured from the rear of the footway must be achieved and maintained in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and road safety to allow an entering vehicle to stop clear of the footway when the gates are closed. 6. PP - Parking and Turning As Shown The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the cars being stored on site and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 7. PP – Surface Water Drainage – Further detail required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of the intended means of surface water drainage to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Council’s Flood Advisors. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the development that it is intended to serve and shall be operational prior to the cars being stored on the site and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: Page 11
Page 12
Regard should be had to SEPA’s consultation document in relation to the proposed development. 8. PP – Full Landscaping Scheme Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, a final scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i. Proposed hard landscaping works including location design and materials of the proposed walls, surfacing materials and any gates; ii. Proposed soft landscaping including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted alongside the watercourse with no gaps and the road edge; iii. A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 10. PP – Biodiversity Enhancement Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, within 3 months from the date of this decision, a biodiversity statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The statement shall demonstrate how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be implemented and maintained for the lifetime of the development. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc) shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Page 12
Page 13
11. Non-Native Species Removal Plan Within 3 months of the date of this permission, an Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) Flora Management and Removal Plan shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer. The approved plan shall have been prepared by suitably-qualified ecologist, and fully adhered implemented. Reason: In the interests of biodiversity. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 November 2024; Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 9 January 2025; Supplementary Report Number 2 dated 8 May 2025 and Supplementary Report Number 3 dated 20 May 2025, submitted) 6. BEAUFORT WIND LIMITED: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 7 WIND TURBINES (UP TO 149.9 METRES TO TIP) AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL ALSO INCLUDE WORKS TO DECOMMISSION AND RESTORE THE EXISTING OPERATIONAL BEINN GHLAS WIND FARM, MAKING USE OF SOME OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ON SITE: BEINN GHLAS WIND FARM, TAYNUILT (REF: 25/00490/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The site comprises of an operational wind farm. Beinn Ghlas Windfarm, approved in August 1998, comprises 14 wind turbines with a tip height of approximately 5.41m, providing an overall capacity of 8.4MW. The nearest settlements to the site are the town of Oban and village of Taynuilt which are approximately 12 km and 4 km respectively from the nearest parts of the site. Both predominantly separated by a range of hills to the south of Loch Etive. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matters be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission – • That the Applicant continues to have a constructive dialogue to ensure any impacts on the landscape from this proposal can be minimised. • That the Applicant reuses existing infrastructure wherever possible. Page 13
Page 14
(Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 May 2025, submitted) 7. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ4 2024/2025 A report providing an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ4 2024/25 was considered. Decision The Committee reviewed and welcomed the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 8 May 2025, submitted) 8. PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE A report providing an update on the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area as detailed at Appendix 1 and 2 of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 28 April 2025, submitted) Page 14
Page 15
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Sergeant David Holmes, Police Scotland Named Partner in respect of Taxi Car Licence Number 1162 Named Partner in respect of Taxi Car Licence Number 756 Named Partner in respect of Taxi Car Licence Number 5237 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF TAXI CAR LICENCES The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing Police Scotland opted to proceed by way of audio call and Sergeant David Holmes joined the meeting by telephone. It was confirmed that the named Partner, in respect of the 3 Taxi Car Licences, and the subject of this suspension hearing, would not be in attendance. Three other named Partners (one for each of the Taxi Car Licences) opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited Police Scotland to speak in support of the Chief Constable’s complaint. Page 15 Agenda Item 3c
Page 16
POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant Holmes read out the contents of a letter from the Divisional Commander dated 16 April 2025 which requested the suspension of 3 Taxi Car Licences and outlined the reasons for this. QUESTIONS FROM LICENCE HOLDERS There were no questions from the Licence Holders. LICENCE HOLDERS The Licence Holders spoke in support of their Licences. QUESTIONS FROM POLICE SCOTLAND There were no questions from Police Scotland. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS The Members were given the opportunity to ask Police Scotland and the Licence Holders questions. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Sergeant Holmes was given the opportunity to sum up. Licence Holders The Licence Holders were given the opportunity to sum up. When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE The Members debated the request for suspension of the Taxi Driver Licence. DECISION The Committee agreed not to suspend the Taxi Car Licences and the reasons for this were provided. The Licence Holders were advised they would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. Councillor Amanda Hampsey left the hearing before its conclusion. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 16
Page 17
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Sergeant David Holmes, Police Scotland Richard Hassan, Licence Holder 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain and Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF TAXI DRIVER LICENCE (R HASSAN, HELENSBURGH) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing Police Scotland opted to proceed by way of audio call and Sergeant Holmes joined the meeting by telephone. The Licence Holder also opted to proceed by way of audio call and Mr Hassan joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Police Scotland to speak in support of the Chief Constable’s complaint. POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant Holmes referred to a letter dated 29 April 2025 which advised that the Chief Constable requested, in terms of Paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 1 of the Act that the Committee suspend Mr Hassan’s taxi driver licence. The Chief Constable complained, in terms of Paragraph 11(2)(a) Schedule 1 of the Act, that Mr Hassan was no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence by virtue of convictions Mr Hassan received as a result of incidents which took place on 28 April 2023 and 7 September 2024. Page 17 Agenda Item 3d
Page 18
QUESTIONS FROM LICENCE HOLDER Mr Hassan confirmed that he had no questions. LICENCE HOLDER Mr Hassan advised that he felt his taxi driver licence should not be taken away. He said that he had never had any trouble or issues connected with his job as a taxi driver in Argyll and Bute and that he was always professional. He referred to the 2 incidents and advised that it was regretful that they had happened. He said that the assault took place over 2 years ago and that he has been driving his taxi in a professional manner since that incident occurred. He referred to his court appearance and advised that the outcome did not go his way on the day. He advised that the incident was self-defence. He referred to the other incident and said this involved an argument with his partner. He said there were no serious issues and that he had been advised that this conviction in respect of this incident would be removed from his record on 2 September 2025. Mr Hassan advised that he was a young man with a young family and that he supported them with 2 jobs. He said he felt that it would be unfair to have his licence taken away as a result of a conviction which would be removed from his record on 2 September and for another incident which occurred over 2 years ago. He said that he has been driving his taxi with no issues and that he was totally professional and hard working. He said he did not deserve to lose his licence over these incidents. QUESTIONS FROM POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant Holmes confirmed that he had no questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Hardie referred to Police Scotland asking for the suspension of his licence as they did not think Mr Hassan was a fit and proper person to be the holder of the licence. He asked Mr Hassan to comment on that. Mr Hassan said he thought it was untrue to say he was not a fit and proper person. He advised that he has been driving taxis for years without incident and that there had been no complaints received when working his taxi. He said he was totally professional in his cab and that he did not pose a danger to the public and that this would not change. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from Mr Hassan that he was still with his partner. Councillor Brown said the offences were quite serious, especially the first one. She asked if alcohol was involved. Mr Hassan said there was. He advised that the incident sounded worse than it was. He said the person needed 3 stitches and that the scar could not be seen. Councillor Brown commented that Mr Hassan did not appear to be apologetic about the incidents and that he did not appear to be professional in his private life. She asked Mr Hassan if he was a Jekyll and Hyde character, a different person in private to what he was at work. Mr Hassan said this was not the case. He said the incidents were very regretful and that he wished they had never happened. He said he was always a good guy and not a different person. Councillor Green noted that Mr Hassan said he was not a different person. He asked if he was a different person when drinking alcohol. Mr Hassan said not necessarily. He Page 18
Page 19
advised that he was 31 years old and had never been in trouble with the Police before these incidents. He said that he’d had too much to drink on both occasions. He said that he was also injured in the fight. He said that he rarely drank alcohol and that the incidents were 100% regrettable. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Hassan that he worked 3 weeks on and 3 weeks off on the rigs off Aberdeen. He said that when he was not on the rigs he did taxi work. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Hassan that the serious incidents that occurred would not happen again. Mr Hassan said he never wanted to be in trouble with the Police again. He said he had never been in trouble apart from these 2 incidents. Councillor Blair asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Council had a policy in place on zero tolerance. Mr Walker said he did not know if there was a policy. He advised that in terms of the fit and proper person test, there were no hard and fast rules for the Committee and that they were given a wide discretion when considering whether a person was a fit and proper person. Councillor Armour referred to Mr Hassan’s sentence in respect of the second incident being deferred until 2 September 2025. He asked if the incident, which was the subject of the court appearance on 9 April, was taken into account. Mr Hassan said no. He advised that on 2 September the charge in respect of the second incident would be taken off his record subject to good behaviour for 6 months. Mr Hassan explained that the case that went to court on 9 April was in connection with an incident which took place in 2023 and was not being taken into account. He confirmed the Sheriff told him in court that the sentence would be taken off his record subject to good behaviour for 6 months. He explained that he would not need to return to court in September and that his lawyer would attend to confirm his good behaviour. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Holmes that Police Scotland had not brought the first incident to the attention of the Committee as it was sub judice and it was decided at that time to monitor the situation moving forward and wait to see if Mr Hassan received a conviction. He said that his conviction coincided with the court appearance in respect of the second incident. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Sergeant Holmes advised that he had nothing further to add. Licence Holder Mr Hassan said that he could guarantee that he would never be in trouble with the law again. He referred to the 2 incidents being regretful and advised that he has been working professionally since they happened with no issues with his taxi work. He said this would continue if he was allowed to keep his licence. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Page 19
Page 20
Councillor Hardie said he would like to believe Mr Hassan but due to the nature of the crimes he would be looking for an immediate suspension of his licence. Councillor Brown said she agreed with Councillor Hardie. She advised that she appreciated that one of these incidents happened over 2 years ago but noted that the other was more recent. She said she was not convinced by Mr Hassan and that he gave the impression of being 2 different people, one in his private life and another in his professional life. She said she was concerned that how he behaved privately could spill over into his working life. Councillor Blair said he felt there needed to be an acknowledgement of what happened here and that he thought that suspension of the licence would be appropriate. He advised that he took on board the comments made by Mr Hassan but he felt there still needed to be a strong emphasis that the Committee had a zero tolerance towards that type of behaviour and that there would be consequences. He said he was aware that Mr Hassan had said he was a hard-working person and that he presumed this was without incident. He suggested a suspension of the licence for 3 or 6 months and that he would be happy to include the proviso that if any further incidents happened during that time the licence would be withdrawn completely. He said that zero tolerance was something that the Committee needed to stick to. He said that suspension of the licence would be the best way to emphasise the Committee’s resolve. Councillor Green pointed out that at this point discussion was not about the length of any potential suspension. Councillor Armour said that like Councillor Blair he did not think the Committee could let this go without any action. He noted that the incidents happened out with the work environment but said it still did not look good. He advised that he did not think Mr Hassan had helped himself and that he could have been a bit more contrite. He noted that Mr Hassan had said it was not his fault but from the paperwork he could see that an event was cancelled because of his behaviour and that he had then went on to punch someone. He felt that Mr Hassan could not argue that he played a part in his own downfall. Councillor Armour said he would like to look at some sort of temporary action rather than a full suspension. Councillor Philand agreed with what Councillor Blair had said about zero tolerance. He advised that he thought that Mr Hassan was remorseful but, looking at the cold facts, they happened, and if the Committee condoned this and did not look at a temporary suspension, the Committee would be condoning this behaviour which, he said, was not acceptable. Councillor Green advised that he largely agreed with what had been said and acknowledged what had been said about Mr Hassan’s attitude at this meeting. He advised that he thought there had been some effort to portray some of the actions as being trivial in manner and he said he was not impressed by that. He said that it was not for the Committee to determine guilt or not and noted that had been done by the Sheriff. He advised that if Mr Hassan had conducted himself in a different way at this hearing the Committee may have been having a different discussion at this point. He advised that given the nature of the offences, not helped by Mr Hassan’s conduct in this meeting, he thought that a suspension was necessary in this case. Page 20
Page 21
At this point Mr Hassan was given the opportunity to speak in respect of the commencement and duration of any suspension of his licence. Mr Hassan said that he would accept whatever the Committee decided. He said that he knew that these were serious incidents. He said he was not 2 different people and that he was a young family man. He said the 2 incidents were very regretful and that he wished they had never happened. He said he just wanted to get on with his life and keep working for his family and that he did not want to go through this again. He confirmed that he would accept whatever suspension the Committee decided and that he would get back to taxiing at the end of the suspension and hoped not to be back in front of the Committee again. At this point the Committee were invited to debate the commencement and duration of the licence. Councillor Hardie said that he thought the licence should be suspended with immediate effect for 6 months. Councillor Green agreed that the licence should be suspended with immediate effect but thought 6 months was a bit harsh and not necessary. He suggested a 2 month suspension. Councillor Howard agreed with the suggestion of a 2 month suspension. Councillor Blair said he would be quite happy with a 3 month suspension with immediate effect which would mean Mr Hassan could be back to working as a taxi driver in September/October time. Councillors Brown, Armour and Philand all agreed with the suggested 3 month suspension. Councillors Green, Hardie and Howard also agreed to support a 3 month suspension. DECISION The Committee agreed to suspend Mr Hassan’s Taxi Driver Licence (Number 6558) with immediate effect for a period of 3 months and noted that Mr Hassan would receive written notification of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 26 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Gillian and Crawford MacKay, Applicants Sue Henderson, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (G AND C MACKAY, 4 INVEREOCH COURT, CHURCH ROAD, ARROCHAR) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicants opted to proceed by way of video call and Gillian and Crawford MacKay joined the meeting by MS Teams. Sue Henderson, Objector, opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. Maureen Southey, Objector, opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of this was contained within the Agenda pack for today’s hearing. Gillian Dunbar, Objector, confirmed that she would not be attending the hearing. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 7 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicants to speak in support for their application. Page 23 Agenda Item 3e
Page 24
APPLICANT Mrs MacKay advised that she was speaking on behalf of herself and her husband and that he would also contribute if required. She said that they had purchased the property at No.4 Invereoch Court in June 2024 and that it had lain empty for some time after the previous owner died. She advised that it had required an extensive upgrade, and she outlined the renovations that were undertaken. She said the costs involved in these renovations had exceeded their budget and so they were applying for a short-term let licence so that they could recover some of these costs. She advised that they planned to use the property themselves for about 50% of the time at weekends and during school holidays. It was also their intention to allow family and close friends to use it and to now extend that to acquaintances, acquired through word of mouth. She advised that the property would not be advertised as an Airbnb or on any other similar rental platforms. She said that they would like their guests to treat their property in the same way they would. She advised that bookings would only be taken for a maximum of 4 people and that they would not accept bookings for hen and stag parties or if the main booker was under 21 years of age. She referred to the issues the neighbours had experienced with a short-term let at No.1 Invereoch and advised that property had been larger and could accommodate 6 to 8 people. She said that they could not be held accountable for what had happened previously at that property and that they could not comment as this was before they had purchased their property. She advised that they have prepared guidance for guests to read before arrival and that there was also a set of terms and conditions they would be required to confirm they had read and would adhere to. She referred to the shared courtyard and confirmed that No.4 did not have its own garden, like the other properties, and it was accepted that the courtyard was shared between all the properties. She said she thought it would be appropriate to allow guests to enjoy this shared space, like they did, and that they would be happy to impose restrictions on the use of the courtyard, for example, no music to be played outside, no BBQs, no unsupervised children, and the area to be vacated by a certain time in the evening. She advised that there was a large play area a 2 minute walk away from the property and that guests would be encouraged to go there. She advised that they have put up signs identifying No.4 and that they have installed a key safe at the front door. She said the front door was the main entrance, but guests could also access the property from the back door which led on to McFarlane Drive. She referred to parking issues and said that they were entitled to one unspecified parking space for the property and that guests with additional cars would be advised of additional on-street parking available on McFarlane Drive. She said that they lived in Renfrew and she advised that they planned to be at the property on a weekly basis themselves to deal with cleaning and maintenance. Guests would be provided with their contact details, and they would have an additional key holder that could also be contacted who lived in Balloch. She said they were also thinking about employing a local cleaner. Page 24
Page 25
She said that they understood the concerns of the neighbours and advised that they wanted to make this work. She said that they were respectful and courteous people and that this was demonstrated during their renovations. She advised that although this was not their main residence, they did want to spend time there with family and friends and that they could see themselves living there permanently in the future. She advised that ideally, they would have liked to have kept the property solely for themselves but at the current time this was not financially viable. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR Ms Henderson confirmed that she had no questions. OBJECTOR Ms Henderson referred to Mrs MacKay’s statement about unspecified parking and advised that when she moved to her home 30 years ago, she was told exactly where she could park. She said that the other neighbours were also told exactly where they could park. She advised that since the neighbours became aware of the proposal to use this property as a short-term let, they have allocated a parking spot for this property. She advised that there has already been guests staying at the property this month and that one guest had arrived and parked in a spot allocated for another neighbour while that neighbour was at work. She said the neighbour had to find alternative parking as the guest’s car had remained in the parking space all week. Ms Henderson referred to the Inspection report and the statement made that there was ample parking. She advised that the picture taken to support this statement had been taken during the working week when most of the people at Invereoch Court were not at home, and she said that this was not a fair reflection of the parking that was available. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mrs MacKay asked Ms Henderson how she thought they could make it work for everyone. She advised that they wanted to visit there as a family and be able to see their neighbours and sit out in a nice environment. She asked Ms Henderson if there was anything they could do to make the situation better for everyone. Ms Henderson said she was concerned about the turnover of guests. She noted that guests would be told where they should park but suggested that after some time the property owners would forget to pass this information on. She acknowledged that Mrs MacKay and her family planned to use the property themselves but advised that different people coming every 2 or 3 weeks would not be nice for the residents. Mrs MacKay confirmed that they would include information about the specified parking space for the property in their guest book and provide pictures of its location. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Philand referred to the Applicant advising that they had someone in Balloch that could deal with any issues. He asked Mrs MacKay if she thought it would be acceptable to have someone 25 minutes away to deal with any issues, assuming they were able to respond at that time. Mrs MacKay advised that they were hoping to also employ a cleaner who was ideally based in Arrochar. She advised that in the first instance they would come through themselves but in future they hoped to have a cleaner and that they had not Page 25
Page 26
employed one at this time as they wanted to wait until they had got their short-term let licence. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that in respect of previous short-term let hearings, the Committee has placed a condition on a licence that there had to be someone within ten miles of the property to be available to attend to any issues if required. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacKay that they would have no objection to such a condition being added to their short-term let licence if granted. Councillor Brown commented that it might be difficult for a cleaner if they were expected to attend the property in the event of issues arising such as loud parties. She asked if the first point of contact to the property could be by phone to the Applicant. Mrs MacKay advised that as the property could only sleep 4, she did not think this type of situation would arise. She said that they were looking to possibly install a ring doorbell at the property but had not done that yet and they wanted to check if the neighbours would be okay with this. She said this would be a way for them to communicate with anyone staying at the property and that they would also have their contact details taken at the time the booking was made. She said a security deposit would also be taken which would not be returned in the event of any issues arising. She said that as they had carried out so much work to the property, they did not want people to come and have parties and potentially cause damage to it. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Henderson that she would have no issue with the installation of a ring doorbell if it was positioned to look directly at the person in front of the door and was not angled in such a way as to encroach on the privacy of neighbours. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Ms Henderson that there should no longer be an issue in respect of car parking as the parking space for each property at Invereoch Court was clearly identified. Ms Henderson advised that none of the neighbours had more than one vehicle. Councillor Philand sought and received confirmation from Ms Henderson that the additional conditions proposed to be attached to the short-term let licence if granted would give her some reassurance. She commented that she did not think it would be appropriate for someone to have to travel from Balloch to deal with any issues. She advised that from her own experience, this route up the A82 from Arrochar to Balloch could take 25 minutes one day and on another day, it could take 2½ hours if there was an accident on the road. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs MacKay that she would be happy to provide to the residents the contact details of a person that lived close as a point of contact. Councillor Blair commented that if there were any issues in respect of anti-social behaviour, he would expect people to contact the Police. He asked Ms Henderson if she would agree this would be an option open to the neighbours. Ms Henderson agreed that this would be a safeguard if the Police were able to come as she knew how long it could take for them to attend issues of that type. Page 26
Page 27
Councillor Blair asked Ms Henderson if she was happy with the guarantees the Applicant has given at the hearing today and all the checks and balances that would be in place. Ms Henderson advised that she was not completely satisfied. SUMMING UP Objector Ms Henderson advised that despite being given the opportunity to object initially and to reaffirm her objection to the granting of this licence, she felt that the granting of this licence was a fait accompli. She said the Committee had not turned down any holiday let applications as far as she was aware. She also advised that she believed that generally short-term lets were killing communities and guests did not contribute to the community. She said they did not attend charity functions and that they just came for a holiday, did what they wanted to do, and then left. Applicant Mrs MacKay said she would like to reiterate that they wanted this business to work. She said they were respectful people and that as they had put so much into renovating and upgrading the property they wanted the people that stayed there to look after it. She said that they would address any problems as quickly as possible and that they just wanted to make it work for everyone. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Hardie advised that having listened to the Applicant saying that they were respectful people and that they wanted to look out for the needs of their neighbours, and taking account of the many things they have put in place to ensure conditions would be complied with, he would have no hesitation in accepting this application. Councillor Green said that he was largely in agreement with Councillor Hardie. He said that he thought an additional condition should be placed on the licence that a point of contact should reside within 10 miles of the property so that they would attend to any unforeseen events. Councillor Philand advised that for him, Mr and Mrs MacKay had demonstrated that they did care for people, and he noted that they had accepted the need to have someone closer to dealt with any issues. He said he was disappointed that the Objector felt the decision of the Committee was a fait accompli. He referred to the number of conditions that have been placed on previous licences to ensure that if these were not enacted there would be serious consequences. He said he would be happy to support the granting of this licence. Councillor Armour said he had sympathy with Ms Henderson regarding the amount of Airbnbs, short-term lets and non-permanent homes. He said this was not a consideration for the Committee today and that they had to decide on what was in front of them. He advised that he thought the Applicant had done everything they could, and he had noted that they agreed with all the suggested conditions. He advised that he thought identifying the car parking space for each property was helpful and he hoped that this would not Page 27
Page 28
cause any further issues. He said he could see no reason for not allowing this licence to be granted. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Mr and Mrs MacKay subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, damage to property, and wood burning stoves/open fires, and to the following further condition: “The Licence Holder must provide a contact name and number that could be used to report any issues or complaints, and which would be accessible on a 24/7 basis with the assurance that someone living within 10 miles of the property would be able to attend at the property or respond appropriately when required”. The Applicant would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and Written Submission by Objector, submitted) Page 28
Page 29
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 26 MAY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Susan Jackson, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Fiona Howard, Mark Irvine, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (S JACKSON, FLAT 1/3, 50 MARINE ROAD, PORT BANNATYNE, ISLE OF BUTE) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Susan Jackson joined the meeting by MS Teams. Murray Mulholland, Objector, opted to proceed by way of written submission and a copy of this was contained within Supplementary Agenda Pack 1 for this meeting and was formally noted by the Committee. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 5 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support for her application. APPLICANT Ms Jackson advised that she had previously ran a short-term let from this property for a few years prior to 2024 with no issues. It was run very successfully, albeit with very limited lets, as they had wanted to use the flat for themselves as a family. Page 29 Agenda Item 3f
Page 30
She referred to the objections raised by Mr Murray, and advised that she would be able to address any issues that arose. She advised that as the flat would only sleep 2 people, there would be no hen and stag parties or other large events. She said that her family were very committed to Port Bannatyne and that they have been coming to the island for a long time. She said they loved the island and wanted to continue to have use of the flat for themselves. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Wallace sought and received confirmation from Ms Jackson that Mr Murray had her phone number and that he had done so for a long time. She confirmed that other people within the building also had her number as well as other people living on the island. Councillor Wallace referred to a request made by Mr Murray that the number of lets per month be limited. He sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that it would be disproportionate for the Committee to add such a condition to the short-term let licence if granted. Councillor Brown referred to Mr Murray’s concerns about the bins and sought reassurance from Ms Jackson that his concerns would be addressed. Ms Jackson advised that she had noted Mr Murray’s response and advised that she’d had no previous knowledge of these issues happening in the past. She said that Mr Murray could have contacted her direct at the time but that he never had. Councillor Brown asked Ms Jackson what procedures would be put in place to prevent these issues arising in the future. Ms Jackson confirmed that she had been in touch with the Council about receiving labels to put on the bins and she was advised that this service was only available to business that paid non-domestic rates. Ms Jackson confirmed that she would arrange to label the bins herself so that guests would know which bin and recycling box belonged to Flat 1/3. She confirmed that information would also be contained within the guest handbook regarding the location of the recycling point that was just along the road from the property. Ms Jackson also confirmed that Mr Murray could contact her at any time if there were any further issues. Councillor Philand sought and received confirmation from Ms Jackson that she lived in the south side of Glasgow. She confirmed that if anyone had any issues they could contact the Factor of the building or they could phone her. She also confirmed that she had someone on the island that could personally visit the premises if required. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Ms Jackson that she had never had any concerns about the behaviour or conduct of anyone else staying in the building and that nothing had ever come to her attention. She advised of who within the building had her contact number and also confirmed that she had their numbers so that they could contact each other if there were any problems. Ms Jackson agreed with Councillor Blair that most people conducted themselves in a reasonable manner and if not, the Police could always be contacted. She advised that previously she had people visiting the flat from all over the world and that they had always conducted themselves well and left the flat in good order. Page 30
Page 31
SUMMING UP Applicant Ms Jackson advised that as part of Council regulations the flat had to be available to rent up to 70 days a year and she sought and received confirmation that the advice given to the Committee by the Council’s Solicitor was that it would be disproportionate for the Committee to limit the amount of stays at the property. She advised that they have all been good neighbours in the close over the years and that there has never been a problem with her family and friends coming to stay. She said she hoped that Mr Murray would not be too concerned about this proposal and advised that he could contact her at any time if there were any problems. Ms Jackson confirmed that she had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Hardie noted that this had been a well-run and organised short-term let before and that he saw no problem in accepting this application. Councillor Blair confirmed that he would be happy to support this application. He thought that the checks and balances were well set out and he had noted that the Applicant had indicated that if there were any issues she would deal with these promptly. Councillor Green said that he was likewise minded. He commented that there had been notable effort by the Applicant to address concerns and that he would be quite happy to grant this application. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a Short-term Let Licence to Ms Jackson subject to the inclusion of additional conditions set out in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, noise control in flatted premises, damage to property, and wood burning stoves/open fires. The Applicant would be notified in writing of the above decision within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and Written Submission by Objector, submitted) Page 31
Page 32
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 33
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning 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: 24/02083/PP Planning Hierarchy: Major Application Applicant: Downing Renewable Developments Proposal: Installation of battery energy storage system (BESS) and associated infrastructure Site Address: Land West Of Taynuilt Substation, Taynuilt 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 • Formation of substation compound • Installation of Battery Energy Storage Units (within containers) to not exceed 49.9Mw export capacity • Installation of on-site substation • Installation of inverters • Installation of water tank • Erection of fences (weld and palisade) and entrance gate • Installation of welfare facility container • Installation of CCTV and lighting • Installation of other incidental plant and machinery • Formation of access (ii) Other specified operations • Landscaping • Installation of underground cabling • Installation of drainage infrastructure (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Planning Permission be approved subject to conditions for the reasons detailed in this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: A&B Environmental Health: (Dated 16.01.25, 03.03.25 & 12.05.25): No objection Page 33 Agenda Item 4
Page 34
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL A&B Flooding and Drainage: (Dated 24.12.24). No objection A&B Biodiversity Officer : (Dated 29.06.25) No objection. NatureScot (Dated 23.05.25) No Objection – Appropriate Assessment required in respect of Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation. Scottish Fire and Rescue (Dated 9.1.25) No Objection (Draft advice from National Fire Chiefs Council provided). Trunk Road Authority (Dated 17.12.24): No objection subject to conditions. Taynuilt CC Dated (02.04.25) : Objection based upon • Environmental Impacts • Undesirable Precedent • Noise • Fire Risk • Inadequate drainage and containment • Substandard Site Access • Impact on Surrounding Infrastructure Oban Community Council : (Dated 30.01.25) Objection/Concerns Proposals do not appear to conform to draft guidance form Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Recognising BESS systems in Scotland are still in their infancy, a more detailed and comprehensive risk analysis covering construction, operation and decommissioning of the facility should be provided as a single document to the Local Authority before permission is granted SSEN Electricity Networks: (Dated 31.12.24) No Objection. Request access condition/control and informative related to existing substation access. Network Rail : No response (D) HISTORY: 24/00287/PAN: Installation of 49.9Mw Battery Energy Storage System 23/02451/SCREEN: Installation of 49.9Mw Battery Energy Storage System. (No EIA required). (E) PUBLICITY: Yes : Reg 20 Press Notice. Expired 09.01.25 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Yes The application at time of writing has received 135 Objections, 1 submission in Support and 4 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. (i) Summary of matters in Submission of Support • Proposal should be fully supported if we want to have a greener future • Battery Energy Storage an essential part of green energy delivery • Site selection process supports the choice of the current site (ii) Summary of matters raised in Representations • If project is to proceed should comply with National Fire Chiefs Council guidance • Scottish Fire and Rescue Service advice should also be followed by scheme • Local concerns should be acknowledged but electricity is a fundamental requirement and sustainable energy generation is the way forward. Page 34
Page 35
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Local weather topography wind direction and land use are all pertinent considerations to risks from such proposals, but other large roadside BESS schemes are being developed in Scotland. • Road and rail links are already not infrequently blocked on occasions by accidents, weather and land movements. • Acknowledge the decision-making process by applicant through site selection report • Biodiversity net gain planting should be expanded over the whole site except the compound, this would also assist in containing noise and minimising visual disturbance. • Site has been considered to reduce its impact. There are limited opportunities to mitigate certain risks of development • Noise evaluation and proposed actions are not robust • BESS technology is in its infancy and technology is advancing (iii) Summary of Objections raised: • Development will detract from quality of landscape and visual amenity of the area. • There are no acceptable solutions to decommissioning, operation and maintenance, decommissioning and emergency event planning provided in support of the application • The application does not give details of the specification of the battery technology that will actually be installed at the site. • Battery storage should be installed beside windfarms and not villages • Applicant has not provided satisfactory reassurances on what would happen if the company that owned/leased the site went bankrupt and who would be responsible for the upkeep/safe mothballing of site. • Proposals would cause unacceptable noise impact on residents • No information on historic flooding has been provided by applicant • The risks associated with the proposal outweigh the benefits of the proposal • The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service should review the detailed design of the facility before it is constructed to make sure it can meet required safety standards at time of construction as these are evolving. Updated 2025 advice from the National Association of Fire Chiefs is expected. • Proposed lighting would be detrimental to a dark sky area at night • The developer has failed to provide sufficient information to address low frequency noise impact on residents and surrounding properties Officer Comment: The objections as set out above are considered as material planning considerations and these matters are addressed in the Officer report. However, the following matters do not relate directly to planning considerations and are therefore not considered to carry any substantive weight in the determination of the proposals as set out below; • There is a fire risk and health and safety issue due to toxic gasses released in the event of a fire • No risk analysis of the proposals has been provided • Leakage of water from the site used on any fire would allow pollutants into the water environment causing environmental harm. Similarly, a battery leakage would also harm the general and water environment • Proposal will have economic and wellbeing impacts on adjoining properties • A fire would require the closure of the A85 and railway line • Concerned not enough water in onsite water tank to deal with a fire • Concerned not enough fire engines and firemen to deal with industrial scale fire • Use of the land for BESS contrary to Crofting Legislation • Will do little for village but make profits for shareholders Page 35
Page 36
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Local Area already makes more than its fair contribution to climate emergency from Windfarms, Cruachan Pump Hydro etc. Taynuilt substation runs off Cruachan pumped storage so why is battery storage required when Cruachan is already the storage. • Proposals contrary to Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998. • Guarantees wanted that scheme will not impact on insurance premiums of adjoining houses • Lithium used in the batteries is extremely hazardous to the environment Battery Leakage would cause unacceptable pollution to River Awe, Loch Awe and flora and fauna. More environmentally acceptable battery technologies are available and should be used such as Vanadium redox flow batteries. • Development should commit to community gain financial payment i.e. per MW Hr or a percentage of profits made. • The sector is not well regulated and there is a need for more planning and environmental guidance • Two fires in Taynuilt have been beyond the capabilities of local fire service in recent years. • Carbon footprint of the manufacturing of the equipment makes timescale for net zero to be some 30 yrs operation. (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: See Appendix C of this report ☒Yes ☐No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☒Yes ☐No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☒Yes ☐No • Battery Energy Storage Technical Statement • Construction Traffic Management Plan • Economic Benefit Statement • Site Selection Report • Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy • Heritage Statement • Landscape and Visual Appraisal Page 36
Page 37
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Noise Impact Assessment • PAC Report • Planning Design and Access Statement • Ecological Appraisal • Environmental Site Assessment Following initial submissions, the applicants have submitted further supporting information as set out below: • Updated Noise Impact Assessment Information dated 14.04.25 • Response to matters raised in objections dated 19.02.25 • Updated Ecology Report/Otter Survey dated 15.04.25 • Further Supporting submission on case and alterations made to address concerns dated 25.04.25 • Revised Site Layout Plan (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 3 – Biodiversity Page 37
Page 38
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety (Criteria e - Noise) Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas High Quality Places Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables 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 Access Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 59 - Water Quality and the Environment Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Local Development Plan 2 Schedules (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Scottish Energy Strategy: The future of energy in Scotland (“the Energy Strategy”) Draft Scottish Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan 2023 • Scottish Government Climate Change Plan • Draft National Fire Chiefs Council Guidance (in respect of access, water tank design/size and site layout/design matters only) • Bat Conservation Trust publication “Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK' Guidance Note GN 08 / 23” Page 38
Page 39
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • SEPA’s guidance - Battery Energy Storage Systems | Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☒Yes A negative screening opinion has been issued ref.: 24/00674/SCREEN. (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☒Yes PAC Report Submitted with application. Report states main issues identified through Community Consultation exercise are reported as set out below by topic Full information can be found at Section 5 of the PAC report: • Name of development • Safety of batteries, including fire risk; • Road Safety; • Noise levels; • Community benefit • Visual impact; • Proximity to residential Dwellings (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 135 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. Many of the objections submitted relate to fire safety and other pollution control matters which are controlled through other legislation and regulation, not through the planning system. Those concerns which are material planning considerations are considered to have been adequately addressed in the Officer report. 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: (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 4.2 Grazing Land Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Class 4 Peat Depth Classification: N/A Page 39
Page 40
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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 Existing periphery trees to be protected and retained. Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☒Yes Landscaping Mitigation Plan ☐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 (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area (Lorn and Inner Isles) ☐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 essential energy infrastructure which contributes to addressing the Climate emergency and the objectives of NPF4 Policy 1. It must be acknowledged in the decision- making process that there is strong policy support for such proposals, it is important that the policy support for such proposals is also considered as set out in LDP2 Policy 30 and NPF 4 Policy 11 in coming to a planning decision in this case. Officers consider that the site location is acceptable and subject to; • Enhanced landscape/biodiversity planting, • A condition to safeguard residential amenity from noise, • An appropriate plan and financial mechanism for decommissioning/ restoration being secured and • The access and site layout requirements of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be approved before construction begins. Page 40
Page 41
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Officers are therefore 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 as set out in this report, and no reason to warrant refusal of the application has been identified. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Refused: N/A (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan: NA (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐ Yes ☒No Author of Report: David Moore Date: 29.05.2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 03.06.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 41
Page 42
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/02083/PP 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 19.11.24, 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 Existing Location Plan 1:1250 C 20.11.24 Existing Site Plan 1:500 C 20.11.24 Proposed Location Plan 1:1250 C 20.11.24 Indicative Layout Drawing 1:1250 D 14.04.25 Equipment Storage Container Details 1:25 A 02.12.24 Equipment Drawing Layout 1:125 A 02.12.24 Supplementary Location Plan 1:10,000 02.12.24 Switchgear Building (1 of 2) GCS0015-1 7 02.12.24 Switchgear Building (2 of 2) GCS0015-2 7 02.12.24 BESS Container, Spares Container and Switchgear Details 1:25 A 09.12.24 Welfare Facilities Container 1:25 A 09.12.24 Inverter Details 1:25 A 09.12.24 Water Storage Tank Details 1:50 A 09.12.24 Weld Mesh Fencing Details 1:25 A 09.12.24 Palisade Fence Details 1:25 A 09.12.24 Temporary Construction Compound Layout 1:50 A 09.12.24 Miscellaneous Equipment Details A1 A 09.12.24 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Time Limit of the permission The Commencement of the Development shall be no later than five years from date of this consent. Reason: To ensure that the development is commenced within a reasonable period and having regard to the delivery time uncertainties of other necessary grid infrastructure upgrades outside the control of the applicant. 3. Landscaping, Biodiversity and Tree Protection (1) Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of Development a Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement Plan shall be submitted Page 42
Page 43
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL for the written approval of the Planning Authority in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 3. (2) The scheme shall comprise a planting and tree maintenance and retention plan and schedule which shall include details of: i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii) a scheme for the retention and safeguarding of existing boundary trees during construction. The scheme shall comprise: • A programme of measures for the protection of existing trees during construction works 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”. • Tree protection measures shall be implemented for the full duration of construction works in accordance with the duly approved scheme. No trees shall be lopped, topped or felled other than in accordance with the details of the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. iii) All existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iv) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; v) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. vi) A biodiversity net gain evaluation of the proposals All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless as otherwise may approved in writing by the Planning Authority. (3) That all works included in any scheme of landscaping and planting should be completed in accordance with the details of said plan and an agreed phasing and implementation timetable. (4) Within 5 years following the completion of the development of any trees, shrubs, or areas of grass which die, are removed, damaged or become diseased shall be replaced within the following year with others of a similar size and species. Thereafter details of a maintenance programme shall be provided for the future management of the landscaping to ensure its long-term retention and health. Reason: To ensure appropriate landscape integration and biodiversity enhancement are achieved. 4. Drainage (1) All drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with the details submitted within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Surface Water Drainage Strategy Document, dated Nov 2024 or as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with its drainage and flooding advisor. Page 43
Page 44
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (2) Any proposed watercourse crossings that are added or upgraded should be designed to convey the 1 in 200 year plus climate change (46% allowance) flood event unless otherwise be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with its drainage and flooding advisor, or otherwise not decrease the existing channel capacity. Reason: To ensure necessary standards are achieved and the proposals are implemented in accordance with the submitted and approved details. 5. Details of the BESS Technology to be used 1) There shall be no Commencement of the Development unless and until details of the storage technology and approved layout to be implemented, including final details of access, site layout and water supply for emergency services, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Fire and Protection Service. The storage technology details and infrastructure, including the battery storage units to be deployed, shall be consistent in scale and appearance with the submitted application parameters. (2) Thereafter, the Development shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Reason: In the interests of protecting the environment and visual amenity. 6. Archaeology No development shall take place within the development site as outlined red in the approved plan until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeological Service, and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the developer shall ensure that the programme of archaeological works is fully implemented and that all recording and recovery of Archaeological resources within the development site is undertaken to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in agreement with the West of Scotland Archaeological Service. Reason: To safeguard archaeological Interests 7. Trunk Road Access Arrangements a) Prior to the Commencement of development, the existing access on the A85 Trunk Road shall be upgraded and necessary visibility splays to be provided in accordance with drawing No. Fig 3.1 Dated 25/09/24 within the Construction Traffic Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with Transport Scotland unless as otherwise may be agreed by Transport Scotland. b) There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage systems. Reasons: To ensure compliance with access standards and layout requirements in the interests of Traffic Safety on the Trunk Road Network and to ensure the trunk road drainage network is not impacted by the development. 8. Construction Traffic Management Plan Page 44
Page 45
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Prior to the commencement of development, a finalised Construction Traffic Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for its approval in consultation with Transport Scotland. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the details contained within the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan unless as otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation withTransport Scotland. Reason: To ensure that the construction of the development does not unacceptably interfere with the continued effective and safe operation of the Trunk Road and other essential adjacent SSEN electricity grid infrastructure. 9. Secondary Access Operational Use Agreement Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Authority evidence of any required written agreement of Scottish and Southern Energy Networks (or any necessary legal easement) related to the proposed use of the existing substation access associated with the construction or operation of the approved Battery Energy Storage System. Reason: To ensure that the construction or operation of the development does not unacceptably interfere with the continued effective and safe servicing and operation of adjacent essential electricity grid infrastructure. 10. Site Decommissioning, Restoration and Aftercare (1) The Development will disconnect from the grid and cease to import or export electricity no later than the date falling forty years from the date of final commissioning. The total period for decommissioning and restoration of the site in accordance with this condition shall not exceed forty-two years from the date of final commissioning without prior written approval of the Planning Authority. (2) No Development shall commence until a decommissioning, restoration and aftercare plan (including costings) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. (3) The detailed decommissioning, restoration and aftercare plan, shall provide detailed proposals for the removal of the Development, the treatment of ground surfaces, the management and timing of the works and environment management provisions which shall include: a. a site waste management plan (dealing with all aspects of waste produced during the decommissioning, restoration and aftercare phases); to include the items listed in the CEMP site waste plan; b. details of the formation of the construction compound, welfare facilities, any areas of hardstanding, turning areas, internal access tracks, car parking, material stockpiles, oil storage, lighting columns, and any construction compound boundary fencing; c. a dust management plan; d. details of measures to be taken to prevent loose or deleterious material being deposited on the road network including wheel cleaning and lorry sheeting Page 45
Page 46
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL facilities, and measures to clean the site entrances and the adjacent local road network; e. a pollution prevention and control method statement, including arrangements for the storage and management of oil and fuel on the site; f. soil restoration; g. a surface water and groundwater management and treatment plan, including details of the separation of clean and dirty water drains h. any sewage disposal and treatment; i. temporary site illumination; j. the construction of any temporary access into the site and the creation and maintenance of associated visibility splays; k. details of any watercourse crossings; l. a species protection plan based on surveys for protected species (including birds) carried out no longer than 18 months prior to submission of the plan; m. traffic management plan; n. timetable for decommissioning and restoration which period shall not exceed two years unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority; o. Restoration Layout Plan showing the indicative final restored layout including agricultural grade land, and which shall include restoration of the topography which existed prior to the commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed with the Planning Authority; and p. The Development shall be decommissioned, the site restored, and aftercare thereafter undertaken in accordance with the approved detailed decommissioning, restoration and aftercare plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing in advance with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the decommissioning and removal of the development in an appropriate and environmentally acceptable manner and the restoration and aftercare of the site, in the interests of safety, amenity and environmental protection 11. Financial Guarantee (1) There shall be no commencement of development until a bond or other form of financial guarantee in terms which secures the cost of performance of all decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations referred to in condition 10 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. (2) The value of the financial guarantee shall be agreed between the Company and the Planning Authority or, failing agreement, determined (on application by either party) by a suitably qualified independent professional as being sufficient to meet the costs of all decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations referred to in condition 10. Page 46
Page 47
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (3) The financial guarantee shall be maintained in favour of the Planning Authority until the completion of all decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations referred to in condition 10. (4) The value of the financial guarantee shall be reviewed by agreement between the Company and the Planning Authority or, failing agreement, determined (on application by either party) by a suitably qualified independent professional not less than every five years to ensure sufficient funds to secure restoration are provided, and at the time of the approval of the detailed decommissioning. (5) The value of the financial guarantee shall be increased or decreased to take account of any variation in costs of compliance with decommissioning, restoration and aftercare obligations referred to in condition 10 as reflected in CPI index pricing and best practice prevailing at the time of each review, or utilising such an alternative indexing mechanism, with the written agreement of the Planning Authority. (6) The costs of all necessary qualified and independent advice to establish and review the value of the financial mechanism shall be borne by the applicant/operator of the BESS scheme, or landowner, whatever party has control over the site at the relevant date or as otherwise may be agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: to ensure that there are sufficient funds to secure performance of the decommissioning, restoration and aftercare conditions attached to this planning permission in the event of default by the Company. 12. Construction Environmental Management Plan (1) There shall be no Commencement of Development unless and until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include (but not be limited to) provisions in respect of: a) mitigation measures for potential dust, noise, and vibration impacts on nearby properties; b) waste management, pollution control and mitigation; c) surface water management; d) procedures for monitoring compliance and dealing with any breaches of the approved management plan; e) Updated pre-commencement ecological surveys and details of any necessary Species Protection Plans which to be approved in consultation with NatureScot.. (2) The measures set out within the approved CEMP shall thereafter be implemented in full. Reason: To ensure that all construction operations are carried out in a manner that minimises their impact on road safety, amenity and the environment. 13. Abnormal Loads (1) Prior to commencement of deliveries to site, the proposed route for any abnormal loads on the trunk road network must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland as the trunk roads authority. Page 47
Page 48
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (2) Prior to the movement of any abnormal load, any accommodation measures required on the trunk road network, including the removal of street furniture, junction widening, and traffic management must be approved and implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Transport Scotland. (3) Prior to the movement of any components and/or construction materials, any additional signing or temporary traffic control measures deemed necessary on the trunk road network due to the size or length of any loads being transported must be undertaken by a recognised QA traffic management consultant, to be approved by Transport Scotland. Reason: To ensure that the transportation of any components/materials will not have any detrimental effect on the road and structures along the route or road safety and the free flow of traffic on the trunk road network. 14 Noise limit at nearest residential properties The development hereby permitted shall operate in accordance with the predicted and permitted noise level outputs as set out in the submitted Noise Impact Assessment (Dated 31 March 2025) Revision 1, as agreed by The Council’s Environmental Health Officer by consultation response dated 12.05.25. The development shall at all times operate within the noise limits as set out in the approved Noise Impact Assessment. Following the development becoming fully operational, an additional noise survey shall be undertaken by the applicant, at their expense, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, in consultation with Environmental Health Officers, that the development, as constructed, is operating within the permitted noise levels. Should the maximum permitted noise levels be exceeded at any time, the development shall immediately cease operation, and mitigation measures to address the situation shall be submitted to, approved in writing in consultation with Environmental Protection Officers, and thereafter implemented, prior to the development resuming operations. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity . 15. Construction Hours All construction work associated with the development must be carried out and all audible construction activities shall be limited to: Monday to Friday 7.00am to 7.00pm in the summer and 7:30am to 5:00pm in the winter. On Saturdays, the working hours shall be limited to 07:00am to 5:00pm in the summer and 7:30am to 5:00pm in the winter with no construction work taking place on a Sunday or on public holidays. Reason: In the interests of local amenity. 16. External Lighting Prior to commencement of development full details of any external lighting to be used within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Page 48
Page 49
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Authority. Such details shall include the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. Towards either residential properties or the Trunk Road. External lighting should be designed to be automated to power on only upon detection of movement within the site (calibrated to allow for wildlife movements) and switched off at all other times unless required for works/maintenance of an essential nature taking place on the site. The lighting should also be designed to be in accordance with the advice set out within the Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK' Guidance Note GN 08 / 23 to ensure no unacceptable impacts on bats occurs during the normal operation of the facility. No external lighting shall be installed or operated except in accordance with the duly approved scheme. Reason: In order to avoid light pollution and in the interest of amenity, road safety and protected species interests. 18. Public and Private Water Supply Protection Plan (1) No development shall commence until a Public and Private Water Supply Protection Plan, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA. (2) The Company shall demonstrate within the Public and Private Water Supply Protection Plan that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of all private water supplies in the vicinity of the development shall not be compromised by the proposed development. (3) If during, or on completion of the works, surrounding private water supplies are affected or deemed to have become unsuitable, as a result of the consented development, it shall be the responsibility of the operator and/or landowner to ensure that any damage to the said water supplies is rectified and addressed within 24 hours to ensure that the water supplies to the properties meet at least the standards which were in place prior to works of this permission being implemented. (4) Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Public and Private Water Supply Protection Plan . Reason: In the interests of public health, to safeguard water supplies and provide mitigation measures should there be any impacts on drinking water supplies arising from the construction, operation, maintenance or decommissioning of the Development. 19. Workers Accommodation Strategy Prior to the commencement of development, a strategy for housing incoming construction workers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Page 49
Page 50
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: To address potential adverse socio-economic effects and ensure the proposals do not adversely impact upon the operation of the local housing market having regard to the declared Argyll and Bute housing emergency. 20. Reinstatement of Construction Compound Within six months of the Battery Energy Storage Scheme becoming fully operational, all temporary site offices, containers, construction materials, machinery and equipment shall be removed, and the compounds/laydown area if outside the BESS platform area shall be fully restored in accordance with a scheme detailing vegetation replacement techniques and timing, which shall be submitted to and approved in advance by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to secure appropriate reinstatement of those areas that may be disturbed by construction in the interests of amenity. 21 No development shall commence if the existing ecological survey information in relation to the site is over 18 months old. In this event updated ecological surveys shall be undertaken and any required species protection plans shall be submitted to the Planning Authority for written approval in consultation with NatureScot before the commencement of development. Reason: In order to protect biodiversity and protected species interests. ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT Transport Scotland: The applicant should note that the granting of Planning Permission does not carry with it the right to carry out works within the trunk road boundary and that permissions must be granted by Transport Scotland Roads Directorate. Where any works are required to the trunk road, contact details are provided on Transport Scotland’s response to the Planning Authority which is available on the Council’s Planning Portal. Trunk Road modification works shall, in all respects comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges and the Specification for Highway Works published by HMSO. The developer shall issue a certificate to that effect, signed by the design organisation. The road works which are required due will require a Road Safety Audit as specified by the design Manual for Roads and Bridges Any Trunk Road works will necessitate a Minute of Agreement with the Trunk Road Authority prior to commencement. In respect of the design and suitability of water pollution control measures, you are advised to contact SEPA to ensure that the design and operation of proposed safeguards proposed for the BESS are in accordance with relevant legislative and/or regulatory requirements. Page 50
Page 51
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: REF: 24/02083/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. The application site is situated within an area of countryside on land to the immediate west of Taynuilt Substation, to the south of the A85 trunk road, on the outskirts of Taynuilt totalling approximately 2 hectares. The A85 road, to the north and west of the field site boundary, runs from Oban to Perth which serves the locality and leads to the A82 road towards Glasgow and Stirling. 1.2. To the east lies the Taynuilt Substation (operated by SSEN) which is enclosed by mixed woodland and plantation. The broader surrounding area is characterised by agricultural land and consists of several residential properties towards the south. The boundary with the A85 has linear tree screening along much of the boundary, with sporadic and limited gaps in this boundary tree screening where views of the proposed substation would be possible from the road. There are no footways at this location. 1.3. LDP 2 Policy 2 requires that development proposals in the Countryside must: 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 1.4. Policy 02 A which is applicable to Countryside Areas states: Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas continued A – Countryside Areas 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 1.5. Officers have had regard to the submitted alternative site evaluation report and consider that co-locating the proposed BESS facility in close proximity to the existing substation it will connect to is an appropriate approach given the characteristics of the site. 1.6. In this instance Officers are content that the proposal represents new grid infrastructure which will support the transition to net-zero and can be considered as acceptable sustainable development at this countryside location. More detailed evaluation of landscape, biodiversity, heritage and other matters referenced in policy 02 which must Page 51
Page 52
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL also be complied with to accord with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 02 are set out within appropriate subject headings within this report. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. The site occupies part of a single field enclosure located to the immediate west of the SSEN Taynuilt Substation. The application site extends to approximately 2 hectares and comprises rough grassland and is of low agricultural value. The village of Taynuilt itself is situated approximately 1.9km west of the site. 2.2. The A85 road, north of the site boundary, runs from Oban to Perth. To the east lies the Taynuilt Substation which is enclosed by mixed woodland and plantation. The broader surrounding area is characterised by agricultural land and consists of several crofts towards the south. 2.3. The application site is undulating, however in general terms the landform can be described as rising southwards from the A85. Elevations range from lows of approximately 25m AOD (near the roadside at the substation) to highs of approximately 35m AOD (near the southern boundary). There is a knoll towards the southwestern extent of the application site. 2.4. Along the roadside of the A85, post-and-wire fencing and a structural woodland strip (primarily comprising deciduous species) defines the boundary of the application site. Scattered mature individual trees are also present in the application site, with further scattered trees and copses located near the southern boundary. The site is crossed by two tributary watercourses. 2.5. The purpose of the proposed development seeks to install a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) which would provide standby, emergency electricity for National Grid in times of high electricity demand or when renewable energy projects are unable to fulfil demand. 2.6. The main elements of the development are as follows: • 22 x battery energy storage container units; (reduced from 26) • 11 x Inverter stations; (reduced from 13) • 1x Switchgear Container; • 1x Spares Container; • 1x Customer Substation; • Underground cabling connecting each BESS container with the switchgear and substation; • 2.4m Welded Mesh Fencing • Water Tank; • Access Tracks • Hardstanding • Access Gate • Parking • Temporary Construction Compound; and • Perimeter lighting and CCTV. 2.7. The applicants clarify that “The site layout is highlighted on the Indicative Layout (ref: Indicative Layout Drawing), however it should be noted that the layout is indicative and subject to procurement of the most appropriate infrastructure and technology at the time of construction”. Page 52
Page 53
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 2.8. This appears to be a common approach relating BESS applications where evolving technology is reflected in a reluctance of the applicant to wish to specify exactly what technical plant or equipment will finally be installed. Officers have had regard to this approach, and have therefore proposed conditions to ensure that any subsequent details provided, accord with the terms of this permission in respect of the scale and general appearance of any future equipment details. This will ensure that the Planning Authority remains in control of what is built and that the evaluation within this report in in respect of the scale, layout , appearance, and noise generating characteristics of the operation of the equipment is defined by the details permitted to be installed under the terms of this planning permission. 2.9. The battery containers and ancillary equipment would be painted in a muted green colour to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. The development would be secured by a 2.4 metre high mesh welded security fence, with the western and southern boundary being a 3.0m wooden acoustic fence. 2.10. Additional landscaping details in the form of tree and shrub planting has been proposed by the applicant to both assist assimilation of the development into the landscape and to ensure a biodiversity net gain will be delivered. Officers will provide further commentary on these matters in evaluating the potential Landscape Impacts and biodiversity enhancement requirements related to the development. 3. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and Biodiversity Net Gain 3.1. As has been set out at Section 1 of this report, the application seeks to locate a BESS facility on a site within a countryside location. The development will therefore require to address the policies which apply to such development in their entirety. 3.2. 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... 3.3. 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... i) Respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; 3.4. 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 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 Page 53
Page 54
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL through an environmental impact assessment or landscape and visual impact assessment. . 3.5. 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 and, where applicable, urban grain. 3.6. A Landscape Masterplan (ref: P23-2297_EN_08_B) has been submitted with the application. Existing trees and shrubs along the A85 trunk road are proposed to be retained as far as is practicable, with additional mixed native tree and shrub species introduced to provide improved year-round screening which would mitigate any potential impacts further. 3.7. The applicants have clarified by submission that additional screening has been included to reduce visual impacts to receptors to the south of the proposed development. The site boundary for the application allows for all development associated with the proposed development, including connection to the grid and landscaping features to be provided within the red line site boundary. 3.8. A Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) has been submitted to accompany the application. In summary this document concludes that although greater local landscape impacts will occur during construction , the applicant submits that at the operational stage of the development , when proposed landscaping is also factored into the evaluation, minimal landscape impact will occur. Officers, having reviewed the documentation are in agreement with its methodology and findings that no significant adverse landscape impacts will occur in respect of the proposals. 3.9. Officers consider that the location where the BESS scheme as proposed is in conformity with policy advice in respect of minimising landscape impacts and maximising landscape integration. Given the well contained nature of the site from public views of significance, and the fact that further mitigation is possible through a carefully designed landscaping strategy to ensure more trees/screening and biodiversity focussed landscaping are provided, officers are content that the proposals can acceptably integrate into the landscape at this point. 3.10. The red line site boundary leaves ample land for substantial biodiversity net gain focussed structural shrub/tree planting to be provided, further containing the site and minimising its potential impact on the landscape and amenity of the area in general. Although some additional scattered tree/copse planting is currently proposed, Officers do not consider that this is sufficient to meet both landscape integration requirements or biodiversity enhancement requirements. A condition requiring improved and more substantial tree/landscape planting around the BESS site is therefore proposed. 3.11. There are a number of residential properties located within the area immediately surrounding the application site. The submitted Zone of Theoretical Visibility concludes that that there is a very limited number from which potential visibility of the proposed development would arise: at Fairy Hill Croft, Plot 2 Deerview, and Land at Croft 4. Although the right to a view is not a material planning consideration, officers do consider that any impacts on the amenity of residential properties should in so far as is practicable be minimised. The need for additional and more substantial planting related to both Page 54
Page 55
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL landscape integration and biodiversity enhancement will also reduce impacts on views of the development from residential properties located south and above the application site. 3.12. Officers consider there will be landscaping opportunities to assist in reducing any on views/amenity impacts from residential properties located in the general vicinity of the proposed site and officers are content that having regard to the LVIA evaluation, the requirement by suspensive condition for additional biodiversity focussed tree planting/landscaping will ensure that no unacceptable impacts on residential amenities will occur. 3.13. That the proposals will co-locate in the landscape with existing SSEN grid infrastructure is also considered to be a material consideration in favour of the proposed site as the containment of such infrastructure offers more potential to both effectively integrate the proposals into the landscape with the development not appearing out of character with its immediate environs before landscaping planting will mature. 3.14. The proposals, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to require additional biodiversity net gain compliant landscaping are therefore considered to be in accordance with LDP 2 Policies 02, 04, 08, 10 and 73 objectives and also NPF 4 Policy 3 and Policy 4 requirements. 3.15. NPF 4 and LDP 2 Energy Policy Evaluation 3.16. The role of Battery Energy Storage Schemes as part of achieving net zero ambitions is sometimes questioned by objectors as the generation of electricity from batteries is not in itself a renewable source of energy. The Scottish Ministers have made clear in numerous decisions that they regard BESS Development as essential infrastructure related at addressing the climate emergency and achieving net zero targets. The proposed Development, through provision of energy storage, adds flexibility and resilience necessary to maintain secure and reliable supplies of energy to homes and businesses as our energy transition takes place. It is the view of officers that the proposed Development is supported by the Draft Scottish Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan 2023 and that there is strong wider policy support from the Scottish Government for battery storage as a vital component of energy policy ambitions. 3.17. The proposal is considered to be essential energy infrastructure which contributes to addressing the Climate Emergency and the objectives of NPF4 Policy 1. It must be acknowledged in the decision-making process that there is strong National policy support for such proposals. It is therefore recommended that Members, in coming to a planning decision in this instance, consider the strong policy support for such proposals set out in LDP2 Policy 30 and NPF 4 Policy 11. LDP 2 policy 30 states; The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable environmental effects, whether individual or cumulative, on local communities, natural and historic environments, landscape character and visual amenity, and that the proposals would be compatible with adjacent land uses….In assessing any application the Council will additionally have regard to the opportunities for energy storage, local energy networks, and long term environmental management of the site. 3.18. NPF 4 Policy 11 clarifies that: Page 55
Page 56
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL a) Development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported. These include: iii. energy storage, such as battery storage and pumped storage hydro; 3.19. Notwithstanding these energy policies and other policy advice which strongly support the approval of the current BESS proposal, there are also specific locational and site-specific planning policy issues which require to be satisfactorily addressed as set out in other policies within LDP 2 and NPF4 and as referenced in this report. 4. Noise and Amenity 4.1. Objections have been lodged on the potential for the operation of the BESS to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residential properties nearest to the scheme through the generation of noise. This is a matter of legitimate concern, and a considerable amount of discussion has taken place between Environmental Health Officers (EHO) and the applicants in respect of this matter. 4.2. In their initial consultation response of 16.01.25 EHO expressed concerns that the development, as then proposed, could cause unacceptable noise disturbance to residential amenity due to the report underestimating the actual noise output characteristics of the development when considered against the background noise levels of the locality. The conclusion was that the proposals as they were then proposed could not be recommended for approval. 4.3. Following this response a meeting was held and the scheme was amended to remove two pairs of battery units and their associated inverters and the layout of the scheme revised. These revised proposals were supported by an updated Noise Impact Report. The proposals have been redesigned to reduce the number of battery units (26 down to 22) and the number of inverter stations has been reduced from 13 to 11. 4.4. The EHO is now content that the revised proposals are acceptable and that the noise characteristics predicted will not have an unacceptable impact of residential properties. In order to ensure this, a condition requiring that the development, as constructed, will operate within the agreed noise limits is proposed. This will ensure the actual noise levels conform to the predicted noise levels in the updated noise impact report reflecting the amended design. 4.5. For the reasons set out above it is considered that subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to safeguard residential amenities the proposal is acceptable and in compliance with the general objectives of LDP 2 Policy 04(h) and LDP 2 Policy 14. 5. Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters. 5.1. Access for the construction and operational phases of the development is proposed via a new priority access junction from the A85 trunk road on the northern site boundary, located approximately 82 metres to the west of the existing access serving Taynuilt Substation. This access is the preferential access point and is subject to formal and final agreement with Transport Scotland. A track to link the BESS site and the adjacent substation is also proposed as a secondary access during the operational phase of the development. 5.2. All emergency vehicles and/or HGVs (required should a large part need replacing on an ad-hoc basis for example) will access the site via the A85 site access, however regular maintenance vehicles undertaken by 4x4 type vehicles will have the option of accessing the site via the A85 and/or the substation access. The planning application boundary has Page 56
Page 57
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL been extended to provide the optionality of an alternative off the existing highway utilising the existing Taynuilt Substation access, however the preferred option would be having a permanent access junction from the A85. 5.3. As this access is directly onto the A85 Trunk Road, the appropriate roads consultee for the application is Transport Scotland and not the Area Roads Engineer. The applicants have confirmed by submission at paragraph 3.20 of the Construction Traffic Management Plan that the proposed access onto the A85 is agreed in principle with Transport Scotland as part of pre-application discussions. 5.4. Transport Scotland in their consultation response dated 17.12.24 have raised no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions to secure sight lines and a safe access, entry point being created to the trunk road that will not undermine safety. A suspensive condition to ensure that a finalised Construction Traffic Management Plan is approved by Transport Scotland is therefore proposed. 5.5. Officers have proposed conditions in accordance with the requirements of Transport Scotland and therefore the proposals are considered to accord with the road safety objectives of LDP 2 Policies 35, 37 and 39. Additional informatives, as requested by Transport Scotland, will be placed upon any grant of Planning Permission. 6. Other Key Policy Matters 6.1 Flooding and Drainage The Council’s Flooding advisor has raised no objection to the proposals and has recommended no objection subject to the imposition of a condition. This condition has been proposed. An existing mains water supply is routed along the edge of the trunk road in the vicinity of the site. A suspensive condition is therefore proposed to ensure that no public or private water supplies are adversely impacted during the construction of the site or through its operation. The applicants have proposed a containment method to ensure no water run off which could damage the environment would occur in the event of a fire. The control of the quality of any runoff water from the site is a matter covered by other legislative regimes and administered by SEPA. Such matters are therefore not a material planning application in determining the current proposals. The proposals are therefore considered to be in compliance with the requirements of the LDP 2 Policies 55,59,61 and 62. 6.3 Economic Benefits and Workers Housing Strategy Requirements The policy framework against which proposals for energy development proposals must be evaluated also includes the following policy matters: NPF 4 Policy 11(c) states that: “Development proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities.” Policy 25(a) of the NPF4 states: Page 57
Page 58
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL “Development proposals which contribute to local or regional community wealth building strategies and are consistent with local economic priorities will be supported. This could include for example improving community resilience and reducing inequalities; increasing spending within communities; ensuring the use of local supply chains and services; local job creation; supporting community led proposals, including creation of new local firms and enabling community led ownership of buildings and assets.” LDP 2 Policy 30 requires energy related proposals to be assessed against a number of criteria , including: Net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities.” The applicants have submitted an economic benefits statement dated November 24 as part of their application submissions. Officers accept that there will be net economic benefits associated with the construction of the BESS facility as set out in this report. It is specifically noted that longer term benefits are anticipated to be created as The applicant summarises the envisaged Economic Benefits as set out below; • Construction phase employment: The Proposed Development will provide investment of around £50million and could support up to 90 temporary jobs, both direct jobs on-site and in the wider supply chain, during the 12-month construction period. • Contribution of construction phase to economic output: The gross value added (GVA) generated by jobs supported during the construction phase could be up to £5.8million. • Operational benefits: It is estimated that the Proposed Development will support up to five full-time equivalent jobs (FTE) in Argyll and Bute and the wider economy once it is operational. The GVA associated with these jobs is estimated to be £7million (present value) over the 40-year operational life span of the scheme. • Energy Security: The Proposed Development can provide back-up energy in case of a power outage in Argyll. Officers consider that the matters set out above are satisfactory to address the policy requirements of this particular proposal. In accordance with normal requirements for development which could attract construction workers to rural areas and impact on the functioning of the local housing market, Officers consider that a condition requiring the submission of a workers housing strategy should be imposed upon any grant of planning permission to ensure that matters related to the declared housing emergency are adequately addressed in respect of the proposal and to ensure workers coming into the area do not unacceptably impact the local communities access to housing. It is therefore considered that the proposals are in compliance with LDP 2 Policy 30 and NPF 4 Policy 11(c) and Policy 25 (a) requirements to ensure that developments do not have an adverse impact on the local community interests and/or adverse socio-economic impacts associated with the declared housing emergency. Page 58
Page 59
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 6.4 Restoration Bond and Site Restoration Plan (to include waste management and disposal plan for any potentially contaminating materials) It is an important and material planning consideration that a mechanism to ensure the decommissioning of the site and its restoration are adequately addressed in considering this planning application. Indeed, concerns on these matters were properly raised by objectors to the scheme in their submissions. Officers have therefore proposed suspensive planning conditions requiring a site decommissioning plan and a confirmed financial mechanism to safeguard the communities interests as part of the suite of conditions, and also the requirement for a detailed decommissioning Environmental Management Plan. 6.5 Cultural Heritage The applicants have submitted a heritage statement in respect of these matters as part of the application submission package. Both WoSAS and Officers are in agreement that there will be no adverse impact on any heritage assets associated with the development of the current proposals. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 7 and LDP 2 Policy 15. 6.6 Ecology/Protected Species The applicants as part of their supporting information have provided an Ecological Appraisal of the site, which includes a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and also information relating to potential Bat Roosts in the existing trees and potential impacts on any European Protected Species. This survey was updated at the request of the Councils Biodiversity Officer and a new survey was submitted on 15.04.25. The submissions confirm that the submitted appraisal follows the Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the Guidelines for Ecological Report Writing (CIEEM 2017a; 2017b),and is in line with the British Standard BS42020:2013 ‘Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development’. It is based on information from a desk study, and an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey. Having regard to the main findings of the updated report, there are no identified protected species on the site, however there may be limited opportunity for bat roosts in some of the larger trees on site. In respect of the surveys for Otters there are no identified Holts on the application site although there are signs that Otters may utilise the watercourse Both NatureScot and the Councils biodiversity officer are content with the proposals subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to secure biodiversity net gain through increased landscape/tree planting. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with the requirements of NPF4 Policies 3 and 4 and LDP 2 Policy 73. Members are requested to note that an Appropriate Assessment (AA) has been carried out at the request of NatureScot in respect of potential adverse impacts on Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation. The required AA has been provided at appendix C to this report. Officers can identify no reason to depart from the opinion of NatureScot that based on the information provided, our conclusion is that the Proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. Page 59
Page 60
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Officers note the request by NatureScot for a 10m vegetation gap around the proposal. This is a matter that can be addressed as part of approving the required landscaping and biodiversity enhancement scheme as required by other conditions. The proposals are therefore considered to be in accordance with LDP 2 Policy 74 of and NPF 4 Policy 4. 6.7 Conclusion. The proposal is for essential energy infrastructure which contributes to addressing the Climate emergency and the objectives of NPF4 Policy 1, it must be acknowledged in the decision-making process that there is strong policy support for such proposals as set out in LDP2 Policy 30 and NPF 4 Policy 11 in coming to a Planning decision in this case. Officers consider that the site location is acceptable and subject to; • Enhanced landscape/biodiversity planting, • Condition(s) to safeguard residential amenity from noise, • An appropriate financial mechanism for decommissioning/ restoration being secured and • The requirements of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be accommodated before construction begins, that the BESS facility is in accordance with the policies of the development plan as set out in this report, and no reason to warrant refusal of the application has been identified. Page 60
Page 61
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix B – Objections and representations at 30.05.25 Representations in relation to 24/02083/PP Objection 1. A Wright 25 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 2. Ailie Robertson 3 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 3. AJ Day Flat 0/6 212 Newlands Road Glasgow G44 4EY 4. Alan Johnstone Floodigarry 2 Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP 5. Alan Porte Ardbrae Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 6. Alan Provan Tigh Ruadh Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 7. Alan Ross Hawthorn Bank Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP 8. Alec Cameron 5 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 9. Alison Boyce 44 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 10. Alison Pringle Polvernie Taynuilt PA35 1JH 11. Allister Butler Lichen Burn Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP 12. Alva Lundmark 1 Millar Place Stirling FK8 1UX 13. Amy Boyce 4 Cruachan Cottages Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JG 14. Andrew Drummond 18 Achnafearna Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JP 15. Andrew Parker PA35 1HP 16. Anne Archer Sealladh Briagha Gallanach Road Oban Argyll And Bute 17. Arthur Houston 15 Aldersyde Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1AG 18. Audrey Paterson Traigh Neannda 7 Aldersyde Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 19. Benjamin Scheschkewitz 20. Birgit Dorries 21. Brian Pennock Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 22. C Godliman 15 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JJ 23. Candy Drummond 18 Achnafearna Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JP 24. Carol Thomson Brander View Bridge Of Awe Argyll And Bute PA35 1HT 25. Caroline Moran 35 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 26. Catherine MacMillan Cluan Beag Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JN 27. Cecilia Keenan 36 Cruachan Cottages Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JG 28. Clare Gilbert Heather Cottage Taynuilt PA35 1HP 29. Colin Evans 29 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 30. Colin Winter Shellachan Kilchrenan Argyll And Bute PA35 1HD 31. Craig Macmillan Sanaigmhor Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 32. Dan Mulqueen Brochroy Farmhouse Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JQ 33. Daniel Day 1 Millar Place Stirling FK8 1UX 34. Daphne MacCallum No Address Provided 35. David Currie Cara Glen Lonan Taynuilt 36. David Paterson Traigh Neannda 7 Aldersyde Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 37. David Pratt 1 Old School Bank Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JE 38. David Wellburn Cearnag 6 Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP 39. Dee Pennock Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 40. Deirdre Pennock 8 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 41. Derek Worth 26 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 42. Donald Harrison 43. Donalda Henderson Tigh-Na-Fuaran Airds Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 44. Douglas Bell 45. Dr Aileen Porte Ardbrae Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 46. Duncan Blyth Carnoch Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 47. Elaine Boyce 28 Aldersyde Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1AG 48. Emily Reid Burnside Croft Ichrachan Taynuilt Argyll Page 61
Page 62
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 49. Evelyn Greig Tigh Fuaran Kirkton Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 50. Fabian Henning Am Ziegeleischiag 4B 14641 Wustermark Germany 51. Fiona Evans 29 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 52. Fiona Jarvie 1 & 2 The Cottages Ichrachan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 53. Flora Anderson 42 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 54. Flora Winter Shellachan Kilchrenan Argyll And Bute PA35 1HD 55. Geoffrey Russell The Cottage In The Woods Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HZ 56. Gordon Nicol 9 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 57. Heather Shaw 5 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 58. Heather Shephard 29 Aldersyde Taynuilt PA35 1AG 59. Hilary Currie Cara Glen Lonan Taynuilt 60. Hugh Campbell Achanlochan Farm Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JW 61. Hugh Longbottom Sandbank Airds Bay Argyll And Bute PA35 1JR 62. Iain D MacKintosh 3 Kirkton Taynuilt Argyll 63. Ian Johnstone 14 St Oran's Place Connel PA37 1AD 64. Isabel Blyth Carnoch Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 65. J Bennett Dun Aluin Kilchrenan Argyll And Bute PA35 1HG 66. J Campbell Inverawe Barn Inverawe Argyll And Bute PA35 1HU 67. J D MacKintosh Kirkton Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JD 68. J Godliman 15 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JJ 69. J Horne 17 Achnafearna Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JP 70. Jack James Reid Burnside Croft Ichrachan Taynuilt Argyll 71. Jamie Gibson 1 Chestnut Court Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JZ 72. James MacMillan Cluan Beag Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JN 73. Janet Frew 20 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 74. Janette MacMillan 21 Cruachan Cottages Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JG 75. Janice Harrison 76. Janine Johnston 5 Polfearn House Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JQ 77. John Boyce 44 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 78. John Day Fairy Hill Croft Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 79. Jonathan Brown Edgebrook House 13 East Fettes Avenue Edinburgh EH4 1DN 80. Joy MacWhannell 6 Cruachan Cottage Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JS 81. Joyce Cameron 26 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 82. June Currie Roselea Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JE 83. Karen MacMillan 7 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 84. Karen Smurthwaite Struthan Cottage TAYNUILT PA35 1HY 85. Katherine Blyth Carnoch Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 86. Kathryn Pennock 8 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 87. Kathy Longbottom Sandbank Airds Bay Argyll And Bute PA35 1JR 88. Keith MacMillan 21 Cruachan Cottages Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JG 89. Kieran Swan The Bothie Airds Bay Argyll And Bute PA35 1JR 90. L A Crossley 4 Lochandhu Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JL 91. Linsey Johnstone Floodigarry 2 Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP 92. Lisa Crossley New York Dalavich Argyll And Bute PA35 1HL 93. Liz Ross 10 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 94. Luna Martin 95. Lynne Meldrum Dunfraoch Taynuilt PA35 1JE 96. Lynne Russell The Cottage In The Woods Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HZ 97. M C Wells 9 Brochroy Crofts Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JQ 98. Magaret Butler Lichen Burn Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP 99. Mary Nicolson Caladh-Reidh Airds Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 100. Mary Scott Nantrigg Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JQ 101. Matthew Davey Ardtalla 6 Brochroy Crofts Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 102. Michael Smurthwaite Struthan Cottage TAYNUILT PA35 1HY 103. Michael Thorley Little Paddock East Road East Mersea Essex Page 62
Page 63
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 104. Morag Griffiths Woodend Cottage Kirkton Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 105. Mr MacDonald 1 Aldersyde Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1AG 106. Mr Provan Tigh Ruadh Taynuilt 107. Mrs MacDonald 1 Aldersyde Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1AG 108. Stefan Jaretzke 3 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 109. Vanessa Anderson West Manse Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JW 110. Paula Baker 7 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 111. Paul Smith Dean Cottage Airds Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 112. Peter Henderson Tigh-Na-Fuaran Airds Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 113. Provan Tigh Ruadh Taynuilt 114. R A Morrison Flat 0/6 212 Newlands Road Glasgow G44 4EY 115. R Horne 17 Achnafearna Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JP 116. R Wright 25 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 117. Rosie Hughes 3 Cruachan Terrace Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JX 118. Sally Nicol 9 Otter Creek Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 119. Sarah Thorley Little Paddock East Road East Mersea Essex 120. Sarah Wellburn Cearnag 6 Otter Creek Taynuilt PA35 1HP 121. Sharon Reid Ichrachan Cottage Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 122. Sheena McIntyre 7 Cruachan Cottages Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JG 123. Shirley Bell 124. Stephen MacIntyre Head Of Environment Mowi Scotland 125. Susan Jarvie 1 & 2 The Cottages Ichrachan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 126. Susan Lindsay 8 Achlonan Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JJ 127. Susan MacPhail The Bothie Airds Bay Argyll And Bute PA35 1JR 128. Thomas Dolan 4 Brochroy Crofts Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JQ 129. Tom McLellan Manish Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JQ 130. Undine Achilles-Day Fairy Hill Croft Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1HP 131. Valerie MacFarlane Tigh Na Barsh Taynuilt Argyll PA35 1JQ 132. Vanessa Henning Am Ziegeleischiag 4B 14641 Wustermark Germany 133. W Lewis Mo-Dhaichaidh Airds Taynuilt Argyll And Bute 134. Wendy Campbell Field House Airds Bay Argyll And Bute PA35 1JR 135. Wilfried Dorries Support 1. John Bee Bar Glas Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HY Representation 1. Sam Bristow Nant Bank Croft Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1HP 2. James Andrews Springbank Taynuilt 3. Maria Andrews Springbank Taynuilt 4. Ian Reid 2 Firgrove Ardconnel Road Oban Argyll And Bute Page 63
Page 64
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix C – HABITATS REGULATIONS ‘APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT’ Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Biological) : Appropriate Assessment by Argyll and Bute Council under Regulations 9A and 11-15 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2011 Loch Etive Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (Biological) Site Code: UK0012750 Site Area: 2,642.60 Ha NatureScot Opinion on the need for an Appropriate Assessment NatureScot have taken the view that this Proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the woodland features of the SAC. In circumstances where European Protected Species could be subject to significant effects as a consequence of development proposals the competent authority, in considering whether development should be consented, is required to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ to inform its decision-making process, on the basis that where unacceptable effects are identified, or in cases of ‘reasonable scientific doubt’, then permission ought not to be granted. An ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to be undertaken in cases where any plan or project which: (a) Either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site designated for nature conservation; and (b) Is not directly connected with the management of the site. Consequently, Argyll and Bute Council, as Competent Authority, is required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interest. SPA Qualifying Interests 1) Woodland Key factors affecting the qualifying features Mixed woodland on base-rich soils associated with rocky slopes. This habitat typically occurs in association with base-rich rocks in the steep- sided immature river valleys and is found on nutrient-rich soils that often accumulate in the shady micro-climates towards the bases of slopes and ravines. Such forests are not extensive but fragmentary stands that then grade into other woodland types on level valley floors or slopes above are widespread. Some good examples of this habitat occur in the deeply-incised rocky gorges associated with Glen Nant and in the nearby Coille Leitire, with the habitat also found at Ard Trilleachan, Barran Dubh, Clais Dhearg, Kennacraig to Esragan Burn and Bonawe to Cadderlie. The habitat at Glen Nant supports notable bryophyte and lichen communities. These sites are representative of the habitat type in western Scotland and comprise stands of ash woodland with a hazel understorey and a rich field layer of tall herbs and woodland grasses on base-rich soils characteristic of the habitat. Key management issues include grazing levels and problematic native and non-native species. The woodland is considered to be in a favourable declining condition at this site due Page 64
Page 65
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL to grazing levels and the associated lack of regeneration, which in turn has affected the woodland structure. 2) Otter Otter require continued proximity to unpolluted open water either freshwater or coastal. There should be a plentiful food supply and features for providing shelter for both resting and breeding. They are wide ranging and normally occur at low densities. The feature is in favourable condition at Loch Etive Woods SAC. Previous population declines in otters in Scotland were primarily due to pollution and persecution. Characteristics of the Development The proposal relates to the provision of a Battery Energy Storage Scheme (BESS) located approximately 1km from the boundary with the SAC. The site is separated from the SAC by both fields and residential properties and curtilages. The construction and normal operational characteristic of the BESS scheme will have no direct or cross boundary impacts upon the SAC however NatureScot raised concerns that there may be a risk of fire which could affect the SAC. The ecological survey submitted with the application did however indicate the presence of Otters using the application site, which is both a European Protected Species and a Qualifying Interest of the SAC and therefore potential impact upon movement routes through the site required to be considered. Assessment The assessment considers the impact of the proposals on the qualifying species within the designated area and has regard to the applicant’s submitted information in support of the planning application, and to consultation advice provided by NatureScot. NatureScot in their response indicated that they considered that there may be a risk of fire spreading from the Proposal to the SAC. However, they note that the Applicant has outlined a number of fire safety measures in their application which will be suitable to minimise this risk. Additionally, the habitat between the Proposal and the designated site will likely limit the spread of fire in that direction. Notwithstanding this advice they advised that a 10m vegetation gap is implemented around the proposal to help prevent any fire from spreading beyond the edge of the development. With regards to the otter Qualifying Interest of the SAC, their advice is that it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect, either directly or indirectly. An appropriate assessment in respect of Otters and potential impacts is therefore not required. This is because, although suitable otter habitat exists at the site, the area of development is small compared to the rest of the SAC, and the surveys have shown that there is no evidence of otter using the site at present. Recommended Mitigation to be Secured by Planning Condition Comments received from NatureScot in respect of the requested 10m “fire break” around the development are able to be secured as part of consideration of the landscaping details which are required by proposed condition 03. NatureScot have also requested further pre-start ecological surveys be undertaken. Proposed condition 12 in respect of the CEMP includes a requirement for pre-commencement surveys, and if required Species Protection Plans to be subject to consultation and approval by NatureScot. Page 65
Page 66
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Conclusion The potential impacts of the development in relation to the qualifying species within the SPA designation have been considered in the light of the above and it has been concluded that with identified mitigation measures in place through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions that the impacts arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development as proposed, will not with identified mitigation in place, have a significant impact upon qualifying interests, and accordingly there is no reason to withhold permission on European nature conservation grounds. Page 66
Page 67
" " " " " "" " " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/02083/PP O 1:2,500 0 20 4010 Meters Application Site Page 67
Page 68
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 69
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 25/00093/MFF Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: DawnFresh Farming Ltd Proposal: 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 Site Address: Port Na Mine Fish Farm (Etive 3), Inverawe, Taynuilt, 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 • Modification of existing 10 x 70m circumference pens in 2 x 5 grid arrangement to 6 x 120m circumference pens in a 1 x 6 mooring grid; • Installation of pole mounted top nets; • Installation of moorings; • Installation of 200 tonne hybrid feed barge. (ii) Other specified operations • Biomass increase from 458.4 tonnes to 700 tonnes. • Navigational lighting in accordance with the requirements of the National Lighthouse Board. (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be approved, subject to the conditions. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government (MDSG) (dated 13/3/2025): In relation to benthic impacts, noted that the SEPA screening modelling and risk Page 69 Agenda Item 5
Page 70
Classification: OFFICIAL identification report demonstrates that a biomass of 700t can be supported on the site while the transfer of biomass from Etive 2 site would result in no net increase in biomass in the loch and therefore no water column impacts are expected. The site falls within Disease Management Area 15b and the proposed modification will not alter the current area Disease Management Area for this site. The operation of the sites will be at an acceptable stocking density level of below 22kg/m3 and it should be made clear in any permission granted that only one species is to be stocked on site at any one time. The predator mitigation plan states that a cone lift up system is used to collect and retrieve mortalities from the net base daily – confirmation should be provided that this remains relevant to the site or further information provided on the proposed method and frequency of mortality removal. Historic sea lice levels were below SGMD reporting/increased monitoring levels although it is noted there were periods of very high sea lice levels in September 2021 at Etive 6 and Etive 3. However, the Loch Etive sites have recently changed from rainbow trout production to production of Atlantic salmon post- smolts, in which the sites are stocked for short periods of 6-7 months and then synchronously fallowed for at least 4 weeks to improve sea lice management. The modelling provided suggests this stocking strategy would avoid the high lice numbers observed during the second summer at sea. Generally, the reduction in pen number from 10 to 6 is likely to result in increased efficiencies on site when performing husbandry operations and sea lice monitoring procedures. The proposed contingency plan for dealing with an escape or suspected escape event is satisfactory as is the information provided on equipment and strategies to minimise predator interactions. The applicant should confirm the Predator Mitigation Plan dated February 2024 is relevant to the modified site. The applicant has provided self-attestation for the equipment proposed to be used on site but should confirm that the attestation remains relevant to the modifications proposed in March 2025. The Awe catchment that neighbours the site is known to have fisheries for sea trout and evidence suggests that lice from fish farming can cause a risk to sea trout. The applicant appears to be aware of the potential impacts on sea trout and has indicated they intend to manage the site as part of the local FMA (area M-36). They undertake to follow recommended industry practises relating to sea lice control and containment. As sea trout are present in these onshore waters all year round, strict control of sea lice should be practiced throughout the year. From 2025 SEPA are expected to implement an adaptive approach to managing interactions between sea lice from fish farms and sea trout, to be overseen by a new national monitoring programme (although this has not yet been implemented). As such, an Environmental Management Plan has not been submitted for this proposal and therefore planning condition is recommended to include a 6 month review period to require an EMP to be submitted and approved by the local Planning Authority, should the national risk assessment not be implemented. Page 70
Page 71
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer comment: there is an existing EMP In place for Loch Etive (dated 5.12.23) which the applicant has confirmed remains appropriate for this site until such time as the new Framework is implemented. Further information required by MDSG: • Confirmation on mortality removal and disposal procedures • Confirmation on use of cleaner fish species on site • Confirmation that predator mitigation plan is relevant to modified site • Confirmation that equipment attestation is relevant to modified site • Slice consent clarification • Predicted time to complete treatments with Deltamethrin Following the submission of further information by the applicant on 28.4.2025, MDSG confirm on 22.5.2025 that the following matters have been satisfactorily resolved: • The applicant confirms that mortalities will continue to be removed at least daily and mortalities incinerated or ensiled on site prior to uplift to an approved facility by a licensed waste carrier. • The applicant confirms that cleaner fish species, typically farmed ballan wrasse and wild caught wrasse of mixed species, are proposed for use on site. During Mowi’s operation of the sites with Atlantic salmon, wild wrasse were found naturally occurring in a pen at Etive 3; indicating that they were already present in the local environment. Following extensive consultation by the applicant’s health and welfare department, it was decided to stock pens with wrasse to increase available sea lice management methods and have a preventative sea lice measure in place throughout these short production cycles, which may reduce the requirement for any reactive interventions resulting from increased sea lice numbers on site. It is proposed that wrasse will move to the ongrowing site at the end of their Etive production cycle. • The applicant has confirmed that although the dates on the predator mitigation plan and equipment attestation are historical, these documents are relevant to the proposed modifications, therefore it is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen. • The applicant has confirmed that the quantity of SLICE would be sufficient to treat the maximum biomass, if required. The applicant has confirmed that the quantity of Deltamethrin would be sufficient to treat 3 pens per day; completing site treatment within 2 days. Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board (dated 24/10/24): Our consultation response to the application is made in respect to the importance of migratory fish populations in several rivers in Loch Etive including the Rivers Awe, Etive, Kinglass and Nant which support important populations of Atlantic salmon and several smaller coastal rivers that also support populations of sea trout which support active recreational fisheries, local employment, and economy. Our primary interest remains the reduction of pressure on wild salmonids from sea lice and escaped farm fish, and we broadly support innovation in the aquaculture sector to develop production methodologies which can mitigate for impacts on wild fish. Page 71
Page 72
Classification: OFFICIAL Given the proximity of this and other farms in Loch Etive to rivers that support wild salmon populations, the increase in risk of impactful interaction (interbreeding) of escaped farmed fish on wild salmonoid populations is significant. Therefore, Argyll DSFB support the proposed change in fish cage size and configuration on the basis that the changes will include the use of the most robust modern cage technology and fish farm handling procedures. Argyll DSFB do not object to the increase in tonnage held at the site from 458.4 to 700 tonnes on the basis that the production of farm fish at the Etive 2 site is ceased and the planning permission is rescinded. Officer comment: the ceasing of production at Etive 2 would be regulated through the revocation of the CAR license by SEPA. In addition, a planning condition is proposed to ensure the removal of all equipment from the Etive 2 site within 6 months of the CAR license being revoked. NatureScot (dated 11/4/2025): Proposal is located adjacent to Loch Etive Woods SAC, designated for its woodland features and otter population. NatureScot advise it is unlikely that the Proposal will have a significant effect on the qualifying interests either directly or indirectly. An appropriate Assessment is therefore not required. The proposal has no connectivity with the woodland qualifying interests of the SAC and therefore no likely significant effect on this feature. Due to the ongoing management of the site we do not believe significant disturbance of the otter qualifying interest will occur as a result of the proposal. Standing advice and technical guidance provided in relation to Special Protection Areas (SPA) with breeding Gannet interest and pole supported top nets. Advise the site is within connectivity of the Priority Marine Feature (PMF) burrowed mud which has a medium sensitivity for this feature to organic enrichment and siltation and sets a sensitivity of ‘sensitive’ to synthetic compounds (including pesticides). The proposal is therefore capable of affecting the feature however, the proposal will not result in an overall net increase in biomass in the Loch, as Etive 2 is to be relinquished (which also has connectivity to burrowed mud). Burrowed mud is a widespread habitat in Loch Etive and any loss or damage to this PMF habitat as a result of the proposal is unlikely to be significant in the context of the Loch as a whole. The proposal is an established site within a Wild Salmonid Protection Zone. Under the new sea lice regulatory framework, SEPA lead on sea lice and wild salmonoid interactions. SEPA should ensure that the proposed change in production will not increase sea lice risk. Historic Environment Scotland (dated 2/2/25): Consider that the proposals have the potential to affect the following heritage assets: • SM2527 Dun Mor, motte 380m WNW of Balure Cottage (Scheduled Monument) • SM3773 Dun Leigh, dun 200m ENE of Balure (Scheduled Monument) No comments to make on the proposals. This application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on development affecting the historic environment, together with related policy guidance. Page 72
Page 73
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer comment: please see Planning Policy Assessment for ‘The natural, built and / or historic or archaeological sites and their settings’. SEPA (12//2025): No objection from a planning perspective but provide advice on the need for authorisation under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR). Surveys have shown that the area of impact from farm activity has remained within the immediate site vicinity. NewDepomod modelling indicates the Environmental Quality Standards for waste solids will be met using the proposed layout. The proposed offset in biomass at Etive 3 by relinquishing the Etive 2 site would result in a net decrease in biomass of 8.4 tonnes, meaning the nutrient enhancement index would not change. None of the Priority Marine Features within the vicinity of the farm are considered to be at risk from the proposal for issues within SEPA’s remit. This is also applicable to the qualifying interests of the SAC. The site is located within the Loch Etive Wild Salmonid Protection Zone. Sea lice screening has been undertaken and has shown minimal effect on the exposure risk. Northern Lighthouse Board (dated 4/3/25): Consultation response includes details of lighting and marking requirements. Officer comment: these requirements have been attached as informative notes. Royal Yachting Association (dated 19/3/25): RYA Scotland has no objection to this application. Argyll and Bute Biodiversity Officer (dated 11/3/25): No comments. Argyll and Bute Area Roads Team (dated 24/4/25): No objections or concerns. (D) HISTORY: 14/02249/MFF Modification of existing fin fish farm site comprising 6 additional cages, addition of feed barge and increase of cage sizes from 70 metre circumference to 80 metre circumference and increase in extent of moorings. Port Na Mine Fish Farm (Etive 3) (WITHDRAWN 18.12.2014) 16/01971/MFF Expansion of fin fish farm to comprise 10 x 80 metre cages and increase in extent of moorings | Port Na Mine Fish Farm (Etive 3) Inverawe Taynuilt Argyll (PER 24.10.2016) 18/01125/PP Use of land to accommodate the temporary storing of aquaculture equipment for undertaking maintenance (retrospective) (PER 22.8.2018) 18/01124/MFF Replacement of 10 x 80m circumference cages with 12 x 80m circumference cages of an alternative design, installation of hopper feed system and biomass of 1545 tonnes | Airds Bay (Etive 4) (PER 22.8.2018) 23/01830/SCREEN Etive 2 Screening Opinion for the removal of Condition 2 relative to Audit and Review planning permission SFA/ABC/046 to allow the stocking of Atlantic Salmon Page 73
Page 74
Classification: OFFICIAL 23/01831/SCREEN Port Na Mine Fish Farm (Etive 3) Screening Opinion for the removal of Condition 2 relative to planning permission reference 16/01971/MFF to allow the stocking of Atlantic Salmon 23/01445/MFF Etive 2, Application under Section 42 for the removal of Condition 2 relative to Audit and Review planning permission SFA/ABC/046 to allow the stocking of Atlantic Salmon 23/01446/MFF Etive 2, Application under Section 42 for the removal of Condition 2 relative to Audit and Review planning permission 16/01971/MFF to allow the stocking of Atlantic Salmon 23/01445/MFF Etive 2, Application under Section 42 for the removal of Condition 2 relative to Audit and Review planning permission SFA/ABC/046 to allow the stocking of Atlantic Salmon 24/01644/SCREEN Port Na Mine Fish Farm (Etive 3) Screening opinion for the replacement of existing 70m circumference pens with six 120m circumference pens, install low profile feed barge and transfer consented biomass from Etive 2 (E) PUBLICITY: ADVERT TYPE: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application EXPIRY DATE: 20.3.2025 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) 36 Individual Representations received objecting to the proposal (please see Appendix B for a full list of the contributors). 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: Landscape and Seascape issues Loch Etive is a beautiful natural landscape with dramatic scenery and a popular tourist destination for this reason which will be impacted by this proposal which will increase the surface area of the farm. Hill walkers will be adversely impacted by the blighting of the natural beauty of the Loch. Fish farms are an eyesore and result in a loss of natural beauty and wildlife haven for the general public. Officer comment: the application has been supported by a Landscape and Seascape Appraisal including photomontage visualisations from key views which concludes that the impact of the proposed modifications to Etive 2 and Etive 3 will result in at worst ‘moderate’ localised effects. Outwith the local area (1-1.5km) the effects generally reduce to Page 74
Page 75
Classification: OFFICIAL ’Negligible’, assisted by the removal of Etive 2 and the containment of development in the area. Furthermore, it is noted that the replacement of the existing ‘hamster wheel’ supported nets with 120 m circumference pens with pole-mounted top nets are less visually intrusive. The proposed feeding barge will be low-profile and will be positioned between the land and the pens to reduce visual impact. The extended mooring area has no effect on visual impact, due to the submerged location of the equipment. Environmental Issues Concerns have been raised regarding pollution/contamination from waste discharge (including uneaten feed, fish excrement and medicine), and impacts on the seabed. The sheltered Loch and the narrows at Connel and Bonawe result in a slow turn-around of water and build-up of effluent. Request for studies to understand this impact. Concerns regarding the ‘carrying capacity’ of Loch Etive and potential for irreversible damage of the seabed. Waste generated is dumped in landfill and beaches e.g. ‘gullet’ area of Bonawe. Applicant response: SEPA are the responsible authority for determining marine biomass and medicinal quantities. NewDEPOMOD particle-tracking modelling software is used to simulate and predict the dispersion of fish farm waste in the benthic environment. This helps define regulatory limits, ensuring compliance with Environmental Quality Standards. This modelling has demonstrated that discharges from Loch Etive farms will not increase as a result of this proposal. The use of chemicals is also regulated by SEPA under the CAR license. It is also important to note that the post-smolt production strategy which has a shorter 6 month turn around, coupled with synchronous all sites fallowing of Loch Etive twice a year, has so far resulted a reduction in chemical usage. In relation to dispersive capacity of Loch Etive, water exchange rates in the upper part of the water column have a flushing time of 2 weeks, perhaps less in times of high rainfall. This applies especially to dispersal of chemicals. In terms of causing irreversible damage to the seabed, a recent study conducted at a former Mowi farm site (Loch Ewe) has demonstrated that seabed recovery can occur in as little as 3 years. In response to the issue of farm rubbish on the foreshore, Mowi have responded that regular beach cleans take place to help address the issue of rubbish on our shores. The Operations Manager for Loch Etive has responded in a timeous manner when alerted to rubbish (which is often not farm-derived). Officer comment: the applicant has set out proposed operational measures which can mitigate or minimise the level of risk of potential impacts (including on other aquatic or coastal interests) to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. These measures are set out in the Waste Management Plan, Sea Lice Policy Strategy and Efficacy, Sea Lice – Implications of Post Smolt Salmon Production for Local Sea Lice Populations, Sea Lice Medicines and Treatment Times, Sea Lice Medicine Minimisation Statement and Farm Management Statement. SEPA are responsible for pollution and have not objected to this application. Nature conservation issues Concerns raised in relation to the impact on wild migratory species (Atlantic Salmon and sea trout) due to escapees, water pollution, spread of sea lice and other diseases, noise pollution. Page 75
Page 76
Classification: OFFICIAL Concerns that brackish water fail to control sea lice and compromise fish health. Impacts on wider ecosytems and loss of local biodiversity due to pollution (including impacts on local mussels/crabs). Concerns over Loch warming due to climate change and impacts of pollution. Animal welfare concerns for farmed fish. Sea lice interactions in relation to wild salmonids. Applicant response: Since moving to a post-smolt production strategy coupled with synchronous fallowing of the loch sea lice levels have reduced compared to previous years. Officer response: the applicant has set out proposed operational measures which can mitigate or minimise the level of risk of potential impacts (including on other aquatic or coastal interests) to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. These measures are set out in the Escapes Contingency Plan, Sea Lice Policy Strategy and Efficacy, Sea Lice – Implications of Post Smolt Salmon Production for Local Sea Lice Populations, Sea Lice Medicines and Treatment Times, Sea Lice Medicine Minimisation Statement, Farm Management Statement and Predator Mitigation Plan. It is further noted that Argyll District Salmon Farming Board support the proposed change in fish cage size and configuration on the basis that the changes will include the use of the most robust modern cage technology and fish farm handling procedures. The Planning Authority have been advised by NatureScot. Fish welfare is a matter for the Fish Health Inspectorate. Economic issues Concerns relating to impacts on tourism and the local economy as a result of the proposal. Tourists will be put off by the ‘industrial-scale’ farming and impacts on landscape. The local employment benefits are minimal and do not outweigh the risk of harm to the environment, tourism, natural landscape. Applicant Response: The applicant has confirmed that Mowi’s Loch Etive fish farms provide for 15 direct jobs with more indirect employment provided in geographic support services in areas such as veterinary health. The total number of direct jobs provided by Mowi across Argyll and Bute is 81. Officer comment: It is noted that fish farming has been established in Loch Etive for many years, alongside other activities such as minerals workings at Bonawe Quarry. There is no evidence of an impact on tourism as a result of the proposed activities and furthermore, the consolidation of fewer, larger pens with pole mounted top-nets and the removal of the Etive 2 pens will result in a positive impact on the landscape compared with the current situation. It is further considered that the provision of 15 jobs at the site (with more in supply chains) is a material consideration as a local and community socio-economic benefit. Lighting Issues Page 76
Page 77
Classification: OFFICIAL Light pollution at night is disruptive to locals. Impact of the proposed low-intensity, downward facing LED underwater lights on aquatic and terrestrial life. Applicant response: Assistance to Navigation (AtoN) lights are required by Northern Lighthouse Board to mark the outer corners of nearly all farm grids. AtoN lights are small and not very bright, having a nominal range of 2 nm. Vessels will be lit when operations during the hours of darkness occur. For clarity, underwater lights are placed into pens at depth over winter/early Spring (when site is not fallow and only for smolts). The entire mooring area is not illuminated. Officer comment: adequate mitigation is proposed to manage lighting impacts on amenity and will be secured by a planning condition. Noise Issues Concerns the proposal will ruin a tranquil area. Concerns relating to amenity noise impacts from feeding systems and artificial oxygenation systems. Applicant response: The proposed hybrid barge uses a battery bank so that the generator does not have to run continuously as no reducing noise. Being able to store large quantities of feed on the barge reduces vessel traffic further reducing disturbance in the Loch. Officer comment: adequate mitigation is proposed to manage noise impacts on amenity and will be secured by a planning condition. Public Right to Navigate and recreation Concerns over safety risks due to exclusion areas around moorings and poorly marked mooring equipment. Restrictions on navigation for recreational users. Concerns over mooring area adjacent to private land and slipway in Port Na Mine Bay. Impacts on swimming. Applicant response: Although the mooring grid is larger than existing, this does not amount to a material interference with the public right to navigate as the cages and mooring grid can be easily avoided by exercising normal navigational care. This also applies to the slipway although the proposed mooring boundary is close to the mooring the closest proposed anchors are some distance away and being on the seabed would not affect navigation. The mooring area for Etive 3 is separated from the private land by the foreshore (owned by the Crown Estate). The proposed mooring area is not an exclusion zone, although avoidance of the mooring grid securing the cages is encouraged. Officer comment: see Planning Policy Assessment. Safety concerns relating to navigation and shipping Page 77
Page 78
Classification: OFFICIAL RIB and larger steel hulled boast navigate the loch constantly during the day which creates wash which disturbs other users, the shoreline and wildlife. RIB traffic also causes noise disruption. Underwater wires cause entanglement with other boat lines and fishing lines causing safety and environmental concerns for wildlife. Some objections state that farm vessel activity will increase and that as a result the likelihood of collisions will also increase. The applicant has noted that all staff operating vessels are doing so under RYA commercially endorsed tickets. Officer comment: the consolidation of Etive 2 and Etive 3 into one larger farm with a permanent feed barge will reduce overall vessel activity on the Loch. Over industrialisation and expansion of fish farming on the loch. Doubling of the fish farm is not sustainable. Open cage fish farming is unsustainable. Other countries are moving towards land-based farming of fish. Officer comment: there is no overall increase in farmed fish biomass in the Loch as a result of this proposal. In addition, SGMD, SEPA and NatureScot have advised the Planning Authority on this proposal and have raised no objections. Sea lice/Wild fish Interactions Local fishermen report increases in sea lice within the Loch. Concerns over previous high levels of sea lice in Loch Etive in 2021/2022. Increases in biomass should not be permitted until the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee has reported on the matter. The District Salmon Fisheries Board recognise the importance of the proposal in relation to sea lice control and support our proposal. In the short time Mowi have operated a post- smolt production strategy in Loch Etive there has been a reduction in sea lice. Comment: SGMD have advised the Planning Authority on these matters and have no objection. In addition, SEPA has advised that the sea lice exposure risk would not materially change with the proposed farm in operation. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No Page 78
Page 79
Classification: OFFICIAL (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☒Yes ☐No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) A Sustainability Checklist (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development: ☒Yes ☐No Planning Application: Overview (Supporting Document) including: Annex 1 Site Plans and Charts Annex 2 Community Engagement Annex 3 Proposed Plans and Elevations Annex 4 Equipment Attestation Annex 5 Landscape Assessment Annex 6 ZTV Photomontages Annex 7 Escapes Contingency Plan Annex 8 Sea Lice Policy Strategy and Efficacy Statement Annex 9 Sea Lice – Implications of Post Smolt Salmon Production for Local Sea Lice Populations Annex 10 Sea Lice Medicines and Treatment Times Annex 11 Sea Lice Medicine Minimisation Statement Annex 12 Farm Management Statement Annex 13 Predator Mitigation Plan Annex 14 Waste Management Plan Annex 15 Screening Opinion – EIA Not Required (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 Page 79
Page 80
Classification: OFFICIAL Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 32 – Aquaculture Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted February 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development Policy 29 – Existing Fish Farm Consolidation and Rationalisation Sustainable Communities Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact of Sites International and National Importance (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • ABC Landscape Studies • Scotland’s National Marine Plan (2015) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☒Yes ☐No The proposal is Schedule 2 development and a Negative Screening Opinion (ref: 24/00164/SCREEN) was issued by the Council on 23.9.2024. Page 80
Page 81
Classification: OFFICIAL (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 In deciding whether to exercise the Council’s discretion to allow respondents to appear at a discretionary hearing, the following are of significance: • 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. The current Local Development Plan was approved in 2024. NPF4 which was approved in 2023 contains a similar criteria-based approach in relation to aquaculture applications. It is considered that the development plan is up to date. At the time of writing this application has attracted 36 objections. Around 40% of these objections follow 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 in relation to these matters. Furthermore, it is noted that the site is already in operation for marine fish farming 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 the removal of Etive 2 is a positive mitigating factor on visual and landscape pollution, amenity, tourism and nature conservation matters which is not acknowledged in the majority of the submitted objections. It is further noted that the modernisation and consolidation of marine fish farming activity at this site is welcomed by statutory consultees and should be considered as an extension to previously consented activities. It is not considered that there would be merit in holding a Pre-determination Hearing as all planning matters raised as objections have been suitably addressed through the submitted material and/or through the use of planning conditions. It is the view of officers that a pre-determination meeting therefore would not add value to the decision-making process in this instance. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: (O)(ii) Soils - Not applicable as this is a marine development Page 81
Page 82
Classification: OFFICIAL (O)(iii) Woodland - Not applicable as this is a marine development (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy - Not applicable as this is a marine development (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This site is located in Loch Etive to the east of Airds Bay on the southern side of the loch. The coastline close to the site is designated as ‘Countryside Area’ for the purposes of development management. It is also designated as the North Argyll Local Landscape Area. Loch Etive is designated a Marine Consultation Area by NatureScot. There are Areas of Ancient Woodland to the south of the site and Special Areas of Conservation for woodland to the north and south of Loch Etive (designated for Otter). This application is for the proposed modification to an existing marine fish farm for the farming of Atlantic salmon in Loch Etive. The proposal for Etive 3 (also known as Port Na Mine) would see the existing 10 x 70m circumference pens replaced with 6 x 120m circumference pens with the installation of a low-profile feed barge. The applicant proposes to relinquish consents and licenses for the nearby Etive 2 site which comprises 8 x 70m circumference pens in a 2 x 4 formation (n.b. only 6 of the consented pens are currently installed). The site would be serviced from the company’s existing Loch Etive shore base at Inverawe. While the biomass at Etive 3 would increase from 458.4 tonnes to 700 tonnes, this would be due to transferring biomass from the Etive 2 site, which is to be removed. 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 applicant has further advised that there are a number of benefits to the proposed modifications which include: • Improved health and safety conditions through the upgrading of equipment; • Improved health and welfare of fish. • As the biomass is not increasing the density of the fish will be reduced and fish can be treated more efficiently in fewer pens; • Improved efficiency which will be likely to reduce day-to-day activity in the loch. Feed barges will reduce the number of vessels on the loch each day. This proposal is not EIA Development. The recommendation on this application has been guided by the consultation responses from Scottish Government Marine Directorate, NatureScot, SEPA, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board, Historic Environment Scotland, Northern Lighthouse Board, Royal Yachting Association, Argyll and Bute Environmental Health, and the Argyll and Bute Biodiversity Officer. Representations received have been addressed in Section F of this report (above) and against the planning policies of the adopted Development Plan Page 82
Page 83
Classification: OFFICIAL which comprises NPF4 and LDP2 as well as other material considerations, including those relating to marine planning (see Appendix A). The proposal would accord with Development Plan policy and accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions. (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 Not Applicable (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Shelley Gould Date: 5.6.25 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 5.6.25 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 83
Page 84
Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00093/MFF 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 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/plannin g 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/plannin g boundaries)(Dat ed 19 Dec 2024)(1:5,000) Annex 1: Figure 7 23.1.2025 Consented & proposed site Annex 1: Figure 8 23.1.2025 Page 84
Page 85
Classification: OFFICIAL surface equipment and mooring/plannin g boundaries (1:5,000) (Dated 19 Dec 2024) Admiralty chart extract: Consented & proposed site surface equipment and mooring/plannin g boundaries (1:5,000) (Dated 19 Dec 2024) Annex 1: Figure 9 23.1.2025 Proposed site surface equipment, moorings, and mooring/plannin g 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 (Dated 29.1.25) Annex 3: Figure 5 0002 23.1.2025 Page 85
Page 86
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 86
Page 87
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot. The first proforma Page 87
Page 88
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 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. Page 88
Page 89
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 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 Page 89
Page 90
Classification: OFFICIAL 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. Page 90
Page 91
Classification: OFFICIAL ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • The Aquatic Animal Health (Scotland) Regulations 2009 requires the authorisation of all Aquaculture Production Businesses (APB's) in relation to animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals. The authorisation procedure is undertaken on behalf of the Scottish Ministers by the Fish Health Inspectorate (FHI) at the Marine Directorate Marine Laboratory. To apply for authorisation for an APB or to amend details of an existing APB or any site that an APB is authorised to operate at, you are advised to contact the FHI as follows: Fish Health Inspectorate, Marine Directorate Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB. Tel: 0131 244 3498; Email: ms.fishhealth@gov.scot • All marine farms, whether finfish, shellfish or algal, are required to apply for a marine licence under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. To apply for a marine licence, or to amend details of an existing marine licence (formally Coast Protection Act 1949 – Section 34 consent), please visit the Scottish Government’s website at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine/Applications where application forms and guidance can be found. Alternatively you can contact the Marine Directorate Licensing Operations Team (MD-LOT) by emailing MS.MarineLicensing@gov.scot; or calling 0300 244 5046. • Please see consultation response from Northern Lighthouse Board dated 4.3.25 detailing the lighting and marking requirements for the site. Page 91
Page 92
Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00093/MFF PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. This application is for the proposed modification to the Port Na Mine (Etive 3) fish farm in Loch Etive. It is proposed that the number of pens be reduced from 10 x 70 m pens in a 65 m mooring grid in a 5 x 10 formation, to 6 x 120 m pens in a 75 m mooring grid in a 1 x 6 formation. It is proposed to relinquish consents and licenses for the nearby Etive 2 site (comprising 8 x 60m circumference pens in a mooring grid of 2 x 4 formation of which 6 pens are installed). In addition to the change to the number and size of pens, it is proposed to install a 200 tonne capacity hybrid feed barge. The site would be serviced from the company’s existing Loch Etive shore base at Inverawe. 1.2. The biomass at Etive 3 would increase from 458.4 tonnes to 700 tonnes as a result of this proposal. However, this is due to transferring biomass from the Etive 2 site which is proposed to be removed and licences and consents rescinded. Overall, there would be no increase in biomass in Loch Etive. 1.3. The sites in Loch Etive were previously used for farming sea trout but since the applicant MOWI acquired Dawnfresh, the sites have been used for post-smolt production of Atlantic salmon. The applicant has advised that post smolt production involves truncated production cycles which involve growing salmon from 70 – 100 grams, through to about 750 grams over a period of about 6 months. The fish are then transferred to open water sea pens. 1.4. Two other Loch Etive sites managed by DawnFresh/Mowi have recently been reconfigured in a similar way to the proposals for Etive 3. In August 2024, Etive 4 was granted consent for the replacement of existing consented 12 x 80m circumference pens (of which 10 were installed) with 6 x 120m circumference pens, including pole supported top nets, installation of low profile hybrid feed barge and tidal barrier (24/00523/MFF). In June 2024, the Etive 6 site was granted consent for replacement of existing 10 x 80m circumference pens with 6 x 120m circumference pens and installation of replacement hybrid barge 24/00419/MFF. Both sites are installed and operational. 1.5. The proposed development is located in Loch Etive to the east of Airds Bay on the southern side of the Loch. The coastline close to the site is designated as ‘Countryside Area’ for the purposes of development management. It is also designated as the North Argyll Local Landscape Area (LLA). Loch Etive is designated a Marine Consultation Area by NatureScot. There are Areas of Ancient Woodland to the south of the site and Special Areas of Conservation for woodland to the north and south of Loch Etive (designated for Otter). 2. Planning Policy 2.1. The Development Plan for the determination of this planning application comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), adopted February 2023, and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, adopted February 2024. NPF 4 is based around six overarching spatial principles which the proposed development should align with. These are: Page 92
Page 93
Classification: OFFICIAL • Just transition; • Conserving and recycling assets; • Local living; • Compact urban growth; • Rebalanced development; • Rural revitalisation. 2.2. Not all of these principles will be relevant to every development and in relation to the current proposal it is considered that just transition, rural revitalisation, local living and rebalanced development would apply. In terms of rural revitalisation, NPF4 supports development that helps retain and increase the population of rural areas in Scotland. 2.3. The main policy which relates to aquaculture in NPF 4 is Policy 32, however, other policies within this plan are also relevant and need to be considered in the determination of this proposal. 2.4. With regard to the newly adopted LDP2, policy 28 is the main aquaculture policy, however, there are also other relevant policies which are listed above against which the proposal requires to be assessed. 2.5. The proposal benefits from general support from the Scottish Government’s National Marine Plan and from NPF4 which together recognise the contribution of the aquaculture sector to the rural economy and which seek to support sustainable economic development. The National Marine Plan and NPF4 both support marine fish farming where it can take place in environmentally sustainable locations, where it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the water body within which it is to be located, and where it does not give rise to significant adverse effects upon nature conservation, wild fish, historic environment or other commercial or recreational water users. 2.6. Whilst not part of the Development Plan, the Council as a public body is required to take authorisation decisions in accordance with the National Marine Plan (NMP) as the proposal extends into the marine environment, unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal should be consistent with general policies of the NMP including: GEN 1 – General planning principle; GEN2 – Economic benefit; GEN 3 – Social benefit; GEN 4 – Co-existence – requires consideration that may occur and the likely effect of interaction between inshore commercial fisheries (loss of fishing ground) and marine and coastal recreational activities. GEN 5 Climate change; GEN7 – Landscape/seascape; GEN 9 – Natural Heritage GEN 10 – Invasive non-native species; GEN 11 – Marine Litter; GEN 12 – Water Quality and Resource; GEN 13 – Noise 2.7. NPF4 Policy 32 refers to the National and Regional Marine Plan and notes that proposals will be supported where they comply with the relevant plans. The criteria noted within the NMP policies above are also covered within the Development Plan policies. 2.8. Beyond development plan considerations, in determining the application regard has to be had to the Council’s Economic Development Action Plan which identifies aquaculture as an important contributor to the local economy, and to national government economic and Page 93
Page 94
Classification: OFFICIAL sectoral policy, the stated intention of which is to seek to expand the finfish sector substantially to meet internal and export demands and to help sustain direct and indirect employment in rural areas. In addition, one of the proposals contained within the Rural Growth Deal for Argyll and Bute relates to a vision for Argyll and Bute to be the leading region for innovation in marine aquaculture in Scotland, UK and globally, by underpinning sustainable, inclusive business growth through investment in world class marine science and technology. This includes a commitment to a Marine Industry Needs Assessment. This study will provide the evidence base for industry needs to inform future investment outcomes and the potential options available to deliver these outcomes. This will assist in identifying the key priorities for Rural Growth Deal investment and where this should be targeted to support sustainable growth of this sector and set out in the business case for consideration and approval by Scottish Government. 3. Assessment Against Policy Criteria 3.1. NPF Policy 32 relates specifically to aquaculture. It aims to encourage, promote and facilitate aquaculture development whilst minimising adverse effects on the environment. The policy outcomes sought from this policy are: • new aquaculture development is in locations that reflect industry needs and considers environmental impacts; • producers will contribute to communities and local economies; • prosperous finfish, shellfish and seaweed sectors; • migratory fish species are safeguarded. 3.2. In terms of the spatial strategy Policy 32 does not support development in the north and east coast of mainland Scotland. This is in order to safeguard migratory fish species. 3.3. Point (C) of Policy 32 requires consideration of the operational impacts of fish farms and specifically cites a number of criteria which require to be considered. These criteria are also reflected in the Council’s LDP2 which was adopted in February 2024. 3.4. The proposal requires to be assessed against all of the relevant policies contained within the development plan and not just the aquaculture specific ones. There are some parallels between the requirements of the aquaculture policies and other policies within the development plan and these will be highlighted in the assessment of this application. The application will be assessed the criteria from LDP2 policy 28 below with other relevant policies from NPF4 and LDP2 referred to where they would apply. In this instance, LDP2 Policy 29 – Existing Fish Farm Consolidation and Rationalisation will also apply. Landscape / coastal character, seascape or visual amenity (including Isolated Coast, Wild Land and National Scenic Areas) 3.5. The applicant has submitted a Landscape, Seascape Baseline and Initial Appraisal carried out by Munro Landscape (May 2025). The appraisal evaluates the landscape and visual effects the proposed modifications to the Etive 2 and Etive 3 sites and builds on the previous baseline study and appraisal of marine fish farm sites currently located in Loch Etive (2024). 3.6. The appraisal notes that the landscape setting of Loch Etive is richly varied and expansive in nature and identifies the key potential landscape and visual effects, which could arise from proposed developments: Page 94
Page 95
Classification: OFFICIAL • Potential effects on the landscape and seascape character of the Loch Etive area, as well as the landscape and seascape character of shoreline and hinterland and surrounding hillsides; • Potential effects upon the Loch Etive mountains Wildland Area; • Potential effects upon the North Argyll Local Landscape Area; • Potential effects on nearby settlements and views from habitation; • Potential effects on views from passing craft within Loch Etive; • Potential effects on existing recreational trails and routes passing alongside and in proximity to the shoreline to either side of Loch Etive; 3.7. The Landscape assessment sets out ‘The Loch Etive landscape is heavily influenced by the mountain backdrop and fjord-like form of the sea loch as it cuts a path east and north- east towards Glen Coe. The eastern section is remote and isolated, without metalled roads and with little habitation. The loch narrows, with numerous sheltered bays with a high value the landscape, reflected by the Ben Nevis and Glen Coe National Scenic Area (NSA) designation. Within this section, to the east of Taynuilt and Bonawe, sit two of the existing Dawnfresh Farming fish farm sites, Etive 2 & 3 and also the shorebase at Inverawe. The fish farm sites are in proximity to the southern shoreline, with approximately 600m distance between sites. 3.8. Both fish farm sites are set against a wooded backdrop on the southern shore, with broadleaf woodland forming a consistent and soft feature on the shoreline and lower hillside, and plantation woodland evident within the hillsides above. The land rises steeply to the south into the lower hills of the Cruachan massif, with a rugged and wild presence. The shoreline is dark and absorbs the low profile of the pens successfully when viewing from the opposite shore. Work boats for the fish farm sites are positioned centrally between the two, and at Etive 2, which is furthest east. The work boats are most notable from the northern shore and from elevated positions to the southern shore also. Two dwellings are located to this side of the site, with views over both developments. With the exception of these dwellings, the sites are remote from settlement. 3.9. To the east and north-east of the fish farm sites, the loch continues fjord-like into the mountain interior, with striking views to the peaks of Glen Coe and Ben Starav and into the National Scenic Area. To the north and opposite shore, the slopes cut steeply up from a wooded shoreline and lochside track into roughly open and craggy hillside. There is industrial interest within the quarrying directly behind Etive 2 fish farm site and natural features of small islands beyond Etive 3. The quarry at Bonawe is a dominant within the landscape setting, with large rock faces evident below wooded slopes, industrial built form and spoil mounds down to the shoreline.’ 3.10. The assessment of the impacts of the proposal on the five identified landscape character Types (LCTs) and landscape coastal character areas (LCCAs) range from ‘No effects’, ‘Negligible’ and ‘Minor’ effects on scenic quality, seascape condition, seascape value, tranquillity, designations, wildness and recreational access. Where the proposals for Etive 3 would result in ‘Minor to Moderate’ effects these are mostly localised and experienced within small pockets of the Taynuilt to Rugha Bharr LCCT for Scenic Quality, Seascape Condition, and on Recreational Access within close proximity only, when passing beside Etive 3 along the Core paths to the north shore within the ‘Rugged Mountains’ LCT. These impacts are mitigated by the positive effects identified from the removal of Etive 2. 3.11. The removal of Eive 2 has further ‘Positive effects’ for Lower Loch Etive LCCT, Taynuilt to Rubha Bharr LCCT, Rugged Mountains LCT and Upland Glenns LCT due to the reduction in the overall extent of developed influence on the Loch. Paragraph 10.15. of the report also notes that “The removal of Etive 2 will assist in reducing and tempering Page 95
Page 96
Classification: OFFICIAL potential adverse effects. Notably, Etive 2 has a greater visual envelope within this LCT (LCT37: Upland Glenns) and sits within views from Scheduled Ancient Monument Dun Mor and within greater proximity to Taynault Jetty than Etive 3. Overall Positive effects.’ 3.12. Furthermore, the appraisal assesses representative visual viewpoints selected within 5km of the site and with intervisibility to the site proposal site: Viewpoint Description/Sensitivity Effect Viewpoint 1 (VP01) - Taynuilt Jetty / C158 Taynuilt Jetty Core Path The old south pier for the Bonawe ferry crossing. High Negligible Viewpoint 12 (VP12) - Parking by Bonawe Quarry, east aspect Informal parking near to the quarry entrance, to the eastern side of parking area, looking east. Moderate to High. Minor Viewpoint 13 (VP13) - Footpath to rear of Bonawe Quarry / C156(a) Bonawe to Glen Etive Core Path Pedestrian footpath, passing to the rear of Bonawe quarry and forming a part of the core path along the north shore. Moderate to High. Positive Viewpoint 14 (VP14) - Sgeir Lag Choan / C156(a) Bonawe to Glen Etive Core Path Informal shore access off the core path to the north side of Loch Etive. High. Moderate Viewpoint 15 (VP15) - C517(a) Inverawe to Glenkinglass, east Elevated view from the core path to the south side of Loch Etive. High. Negligible Viewpoint 18 (VP18) - Dun Mor Scheduled Ancient Monument Slightly elevated view from the dun near to the mouth of the River Awe. High. Positive Viewpoint 19 (VP19) - VP19 – Airds Bay, north side From the water’s edge at small boat launch to north side of Aird’s Bay. High. No effects 3.13. The assessment concludes that the ‘moderate effects’ are localised and concentrated at VP14, due to the introduction of the proposed feed barge, but that fish farm pens remain limited in visual presence against the dark shoreline. Visual impacts on residential receptors at Port Na Mine would be ‘moderate’ and at Airds Bay north side (VP19) would have ‘No effect’. However, any identified moderate effects are well contained to preserve the overall integrity of the seascape and landscape of the area of Loch Etive and do not create significant adverse impacts on the North Argyll Local Landscape Area or on the Etive Mountains Wildland Area. 3.14. The supporting information notes that mitigation measures have been embedded into the proposal. These include the structures being sited in a simple, ordered contained layout using muted, matt, non-reflective colours; buoys being dark matt grey in colour in a simple, ordered layout; avoiding cage mounted storage and associated clutter and the use of non-intrusive colours for pipes; other than navigational lighting, lighting to be non- obtrusive and baffled and in use for restricted periods. 3.15. The appraisal concludes that “the area of the proposed development is a varied and highly scenic landscape, with abundant recreation and heritage resource. However, the proposed development is well-sited and detailed to contain effects to low levels on the Page 96
Page 97
Classification: OFFICIAL whole, with localised effects only to views and landscape character. The removal of Etive 2 is positive in reducing the overall developed zone and further containing effects to a suitable degree.” 3.16. The assessment of the Landscape and seascape Landscape / coastal character, seascape or visual amenity (including Isolated Coast, Wild Land and National Scenic Areas) is acceptable in accordance with aquaculture policies 32 d (i) (NPF4), Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development, LDP2 Policy 4 – Sustainable Development, LDP” Policy 8 – Sustainable Siting, LDP2 Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Area (LLA) and LDP2 Policy 72 – Development Impact on Areas of Wild Land contained within LDP2. The natural, built and / or historic or archaeological sites and their settings 3.17. In terms of Marine Cultural Heritage, there are no features of importance within the proposed location, although there are a number of assets within 2km. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) consider that the proposals have the potential to affect the following identified Scheduled Monuments (SMs) in particular: • SM2527 Dun Mor, motte 380m WNW of Balure Cottage (Scheduled Monument) • SM3773 Dun Leigh, dun 200m ENE of Balure (Scheduled Monument). 3.18. HES do not however make specific comments on the impact of these proposals on these SMs and note instead that this application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy on development affecting the historic environment, together with related policy guidance. 3.19. The submitted Landscape, Seascape Baseline and Initial Appraisal carried out by Munro Landscape (May 2025) contains a detailed analysis of ‘Visual Receptor Groups – Heritage’ including SMs and National Record of the Historic Environment (NRHE) sites. The Appraisal notes at paragraph 11.18. “No SMs are within intervisibility to the proposed development, and at sufficient distance to encounter no adverse effects upon setting. NRHE sites within proximity to Port na Mine dwellings (625m to the south-west) will encounter ‘Negligible’ adverse effects due to slight increase to scale of development within the seascape. NRHE site on Eilean Duirinnis (1.8km to the west) will encounter ‘Negligible’ adverse effects due to visually weak overall changes to view and setting. NRHE sites within the promontory of Rubh’ Aird an Droighinn (1.1km to the north-west) will encounter small-scale adverse effects due to increased developed presence due to the introduction of the feed barge at Etive 3, but with a reduction in fish farming infrastructure locally due to the removal of Etive 2. This will result in ‘Minor’ overall adverse effects. No other heritage sites fall within the 2km visual envelope of the proposed development. 3.20. Accordingly, given the proposals will result in an overall reduction of the extent of development on Loch Etive, and given the ‘Negligible to Minor’ overall impact on the landscape setting the proposal may be accepted in terms of its implication for the historic environment. This would also accord with NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places and LDP Policy 15 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built Environment, Policy 19 – Schedule Monuments, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance. Designated sites, habitats and species for nature conservation (including Priority Marine Features, wild migratory salmonids and European Protected Species). 3.21. Policy 4 of NPF4 Natural Places seeks to ensure that Natural Places are protected and restored. This policy specifically refers to European sites. LDP2 polices 73 and 74 are Page 97
Page 98
Classification: OFFICIAL relevant to this proposal. Policy 73 relates to development impact on habitats, species and biodiversity while Policy 74 relates specifically to sites of international importance. The aquaculture specific policies within NPF4 (Policy 32) and LDP2 (Policy 28) also require consideration of these issues. 3.22. The proposal is located adjacent to Loch Etive Woods SAC, designated for its woodland features and otter population. The site’s status mean that the requirements of the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994 as amended (the “Habitats Regulations”) apply. Consequently, Argyll and Bute Council is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SAC before it can be consented (commonly known as Habitats Regulation Appraisal). NatureScot advise it is unlikely that the Proposal will have a significant effect on the qualifying interests either directly or indirectly. An appropriate Assessment is therefore not required. 3.23. The proposal has no connectivity with the woodland qualifying interests of the SAC and therefore no likely significant effect on this feature. Due to the ongoing management of the site, NatureScot do not believe significant disturbance of the otter qualifying interest will occur as a result of the proposal. 3.24. Due to the connectivity between Special Protection Areas (SPA) with breeding Gannet interest and all Scottish waters used for marine finfish farming, standing advice and technical guidance is provided in relation to pole supported top nets. An Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken and is attached at Appendix C of this report. A planning condition has also been applied to address this matter, requiring reporting of entanglement events. 3.25. NatureScot advise the site is within connectivity of the Priority Marine Feature (PMF) burrowed mud which has a medium sensitivity for this feature to organic enrichment and siltation and sets a sensitivity of ‘sensitive’ to synthetic compounds (including pesticides). The proposal is therefore capable of affecting the feature however, the proposal will not result in an overall net increase in biomass in the Loch, as Etive 2 is to be relinquished (which also has connectivity to burrowed mud). Burrowed mud is a widespread habitat in Loch Etive and any loss or damage to this PMF habitat as a result of the proposal is unlikely to be significant in the context of the loch as a whole. 3.26. The proposal is an established site within a Wild Salmonid Protection Zone, due to the proximity of water courses that form migratory routes sea trout and migratory wild salmon (e.g. River Kinglass and smaller Rivers Noe and Liver, Abhain Dalach and Alt Easach are primarily habitats for recruitment of sea trout). In line with NPF4, Policy 3: Biodiversity (a) and (d) and Policy 4: Natural Places (b) and (e), the applicant has considered lice connectivity throughout all sites in Loch Etive within their Implications of Post-Smolt Salmon Production for Local Sea Lice Populations Report (January 2023). The applicant has committed to implement a monitoring programme either through the current Environment Management Plan or through any subsequent National Sea Lice Framework to be implemented, of the salmon population in Loch Etive with a feedback adaptive management loop to the farm operation. 3.27. For Etive 4 and 6 (to the west of the site) the applicant has changed the production strategy for Loch Etive from Rainbow trout to a post smolt stocking model for Atlantic salmon. This entails stocking with Atlantic salmon for short periods of around six months with a full fallowing period of four weeks synchronously across all sites in the loch. These short production cycles and the increase in fallow periods are intended to address previous sea lice issues and improve sea lice management. SEPA has confirmed that the modelling provided suggests that this stocking strategy would reduce the need for further sea lice interventions and avoid the high lice numbers overserved during the Page 98
Page 99
Classification: OFFICIAL second summer at sea thus maintaining numbers of adult females below the CoGP suggested criteria for the duration of the production cycle. Historically when Rainbow trout were stocked, Loch Etive was rarely stocked synchronously and this impacted on sea lice levels. 3.28. These approaches will be adopted for Etive 3 and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is in place for all of the Dawnfresh sites in Loch Etive under previous consents. This commits to monitoring and reporting of lice burdens on farmed and wild fish, a framework for cooperation and transparency and a framework for adaptive management with feedback management measures to be taken in response to evidence of negative impacts on wild salmonids. As SEPA has taken regulatory control of sea lice interactions, with the proposed introduction of a national monitoring framework, a planning condition has been attached to require an update of the EMP should the framework mechanisms not be implemented within 6 months of the granting of planning permission. 3.29. In accordance with the Predator Control Plan, observations of wildlife and interactions with the fish farm, including entanglement events, will be recorded and reported to Council and NatureScot every 6 months. Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) have the potential to disturb cetaceans, however, the applicant has committed to not using ADDs and this application has been assessed on this basis. A condition is proposed preventing the use of ADDs. 3.30. The proposal would accord with LDP2 Policy 73 – Development impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity and LDP2 Policy 4 – Sustainable Development due to the proposed mitigation for sea lice and the commitment to undertake wild fish monitoring and adaptive management if required. Biodiversity enhancement 3.31. NPF 4, Policy 3 – Biodiversity, requires developments to contribute positively to biodiversity enhancement. In addition, the applicant is committed to undertaking further off-site biodiversity enhancements in the form of a cooperation agreement with the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board to support a Fishery Management Plan 2025-2026 for the Awe catchment which is located on the south side of Loch Etive in Argyll and flows into the Firth of Lorn on the West coast of Scotland. The Awe catchment is the largest in the Argyll and Islands region and supports recreational fisheries for Atlantic salmon which are managed by the Awe District Rivers Improvement Association (ADRIA) overseen by the Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (Argyll DSFB). 3.32. As part of this project, the applicant confirms that a catchment-wide juvenile fish survey was carried out in 2024 by the Argyll Fisheries Trust with the aim of informing a management plan for fisheries and other resources in the Awe catchment area. The applicant will provide funding to support delivery of two projects of the Awe Fishery Management Plan for 2025-26 as follows: 1. Identify and implement mitigation actions (Inverawe Hydro and Cruachan pumped storage hydro schemes) to improve Atlantic salmon smolt survival. Initial studies show that only 20 % of smolts can find their way to the sea. This project aims to: • Identify factors affecting the passage of smolts in Loch Awe & River Awe. • Identify solutions to delay and mortality of smolts. • Work with hydro scheme operators to implement identified mitigation. Page 99
Page 100
Classification: OFFICIAL 2. Restore productivity of freshwater habitats: Produce and implement habitat improvement plans for sub-catchments of the Awe. Juvenile fish and habitat surveys have identified sub-catchment habitats that require Improvement. This project aims to: • Identify suitable areas for fencing / planting. • Agree mitigation-enhancement solutions with landowners. • Implement habitat improvements (such as riparian planting). 3.33. A condition is proposed requiring an update to be submitted on these projects, to the satisfaction of the planning authority. Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposal would also accord with NPF4 Policy 3 relating to biodiversity enhancement. 3.4 Ecological status of coastal and transitional water bodies and biological carrying capacity (water quality & seabed impacts). 3.34. Surveys have shown that the area of impact from farm activity has remained within the immediate site vicinity. NewDepomod modelling indicates the Environmental Quality Standards for waste solids will be met using the proposed layout. The proposed offset in biomass at Etive 3 by relinquishing the Etive 2 site would result in a net decrease in biomass of 8.4 tonnes, meaning the nutrient enhancement index would not change. SEPA confirms that none of the Priority Marine Features within the vicinity of the farm are considered at risk from the proposal for issues within SEPA’s remit and that sea lice screening has been undertaken and has shown minimal effect on the exposure risk. 3.35. SEPA has confirmed the proposed biomass is reasonable within the scope of the new regulatory framework and have confirmed that an application for a CAR permit was submitted on 27.3.2025 (determination pending). 3.36. SGMD have advised that regarding water column impact, nutrient impacts have been assessed previously and as there is no overall increase in biomass, there is no requirement for any further assessment regarding impacts to the water column. 3.37. Subject to compliance with SEPA’s requirements it is considered that the proposal would comply with Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment. Commercial and recreational activity (including other coastal/marine users (MOD)), and navigational interests (including anchorages). 3.38. With regard to impacts on commercial activity and navigation within Loch Etive, these are reduced by the fact that the 4 largest marine fish farms are operated by the same parent company, Mowi Scotland, providing oversight and consistency in procedures (e.g. synchronised fallowing). In addition, navigation of larger vessels in the Loch is difficult due to the height of the Connel bridge and larger vessels are required to be guided into the area. As such there are limited impacts on commercial maritime activities and navigation. 3.39. With regards to anchorages, The Royal Yaught Association (YHA) advised they have no objections to the proposed modifications to Etive 3. As such it is concluded that there would be minimal impacts on recreational marine vessels within the local area and in addition, the proposed removal of Etive 2 would further improve recreational navigation in this location. The proposal will not present adverse navigational safety issues, subject to navigational marking to satisfy Northern Lighthouse Board requirements. 3.40. Taking account of the above, it is considered that proposal would accord with NPF4 policy 32 and LDP2 Policy 28 where they refer to impacts on other marine users. Page 100
Page 101
Classification: OFFICIAL Amenity, arising from operational effects (waste, noise, light and odour). 3.41. Impacts from marine aquaculture developments can include nuisance and disturbance for local residents and marine users from lighting, noise and odour associated with the installation and operation of fish farms. The applicant has provided details of proposed mitigation measures that will avoid or reduce potential noise, lighting and odour impacts. These measures are part of the project design (embedded mitigation) and good practice operational measures that would form part of standard planning conditions for any fish farm development. Managing noise impacts 3.42. With regard to noise, the development is located along a section of coastline which is relatively devoid of human habitation, with only one property directly overlooking the site to the south of the Loch. Other potential receptors for noise would be walkers on the Bonawe to Glen Etive Core Footpath (C156(a)) on the northern side of the Loch and C517(a) Inverawe to Glenkinglass: on the southern side. It is noted that the Bonawe Quarry is an existing contributor to background noise levels. 3.43. Embedded project design and best practice management measures include the use of noise insulation on equipment, particularly on the feed barge, and restriction of operational activity to normal operational hours, as far as practicable. The proposal seeks permission to install and operate a hybrid-powered feed barge. Data collected from the same design barge presently operating at the Etive 4 fish farm has shown that, between August - March 2025, the barge was powered by battery 77% of the time. This is equivalent to an average generator use of 5.6 hours/day. This has also resulted in a 48% reduction in fuel/CO2 use/emissions. The ability to power the feed barge via stored battery energy allows operational flexibility to avoid generator running during noise sensitive times of the day. 3.44. A number of different vessels will continue to support day-to-day operations at the new farm location throughout various stages of the production cycle. The vessels will undertake routine husbandry and maintenance activities, including grading, administering treatments, and harvesting. Currently the Etive 3 fish farm is fed from a boat, using feed cannons therefore the use of a feed barge would reduce day to day vessel activities associated with feeding and discontinue the use of feed cannons as a noise source. The reduction in pen numbers will also reduce the frequency of other husbandry operations such as net washing. A reduction in daily husbandry activities and associated vessel operations due to consolidation will reduce noise emissions overall. 3.45. It should be noted that although standard working hours are from 07:00 to 20:00 over 7 days, some operations may be required outside this period for reasons of fish health and welfare. Operations may also need to be undertaken outside of standard working hours due to tidal conditions at the site or as a result of delays caused by poor weather (due to the limited windows in which smolts require to be transported and transferred). Also, during certain periods of the year equipment integral to the production cycle will be required to run overnight. This primarily includes underwater lighting and aeriation systems. Planning conditions are attached to mitigate the effects of all out of hours operations and ‘Well Boat’ activity and further detail is set out below. Minimising light pollution 3.46. The three main operational light sources are (1) underwater anti-maturation lights placed into pens, (2) night-time operations, particularly involving ‘Well Boats’, and (3) Page 101
Page 102
Classification: OFFICIAL measures set out by NLB to ensure the proposed development is appropriately marked, including navigational lighting. 3.47. At certain times of the fish growth cycle underwater lighting in pens is required for the purposes of preventing salmon maturation. Their window of use is from October to the end of the following March. As they are placed at depth surface glare is limited. Embedded design mitigation includes the use of low intensity lights, their correct downward orientation and shielding to reduce upward surface glare. 3.48. The applicant notes that to manage responsibilities for fish health and welfare it is sometimes necessary to employ ‘Well Boats’ in a 24/7 operation at the site. However, every effort is made during treatment planning and scheduling to minimise treatment times and avoid evening working periods especially in locations with neighbouring sensitivities. Where multiple pens require treatment, ‘Well Boat’ duration at a site can increase. As a result, in winter, with reduced daylight hours it is not always possible to avoid working during the hours of darkness and the use of lighting on these vessels. The applicant recognises this can introduce potential conflict with light sensitive properties nearby and has worked with ‘Well Boat’ operators to apply the following mitigation strategies to avoid the potential for light nuisance from essential night time operations (As per ‘Further supporting information’ statement submitted 28.4.2025): • Design and scheduling (where possible) of ‘Well Boat’ based treatments with the aim of avoiding or reducing the frequency and duration of vessel treatment activity on site extending beyond 8pm. • Positioning of ‘Well Boats’ on site, to avoid the pen working area between the vessel and the shore (where practicable). • Reduction in intensity of lighting to minimum specifications required. • Application of shielding/covers to lights to avoid directional glare away from the working area. • Switching off lights when not required, for instance for the duration of treatments once fish have been loaded on the vessel. • Education, working with operators to understand light sensitive areas and the need for operational efficiencies in use of lights and positioning of the vessel. • Review and identification of options for temporary, less sensitive, positioning locations for ‘Well Boats’ away from farms once fish have been loaded for treatment. 3.49. Navigational Lights and Marks are prescribed by the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities, who class the navigational light (Special Mark) currently on site as ‘minor lights’ with a nominal range of 2 nautical miles. The Northern Lighthouse Board have advised they would require an additional Special Mark for the proposed development, so that the outer corner of the pen moorings grid is indicated. These lights flash yellow once every 5 seconds (off more than on). The proposed feed barge will have to display an all-round white light (this is the same light that a vessel at anchor must display). While navigation lights are essential for safe navigation mitigations strategies to avoid potential nuisances, include proper placement, maintenance, shielding and education on their requirement with marine and local stakeholders. Waste management 3.50. With regard to waste, a Waste Management Plan is currently in place for the Etive 3 site and will remain in place. This contains provisions to ensure the development will be kept tidy and any rubbish found on the adjacent shoreline is collected on a regular basis to minimise the impacts of marine litter. This is consistent with NPF4 Policy 12 and LDP2 Policy 63. Page 102
Page 103
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.51. Given the location of the proposed development sufficiently far away from sensitive receptors, it is not considered that there would be any adverse effects from odour. Odours from fish farms are generally associated with fish feed and storage of mortalities. Feed will be stored within sealed silos inside the proposed feed barge negating the risk of fugitive emissions associated with feed storage. Fish mortalities will be collected in a cone located at the bottom of each pen and retrieved using an integrated lift-up system. Site staff will aim to remove mortalities from the base of the pen on a daily basis and three times a week as a minimum. Stock mortalities removed from the pens will be stored in sealed containers and then transferred to the approved site incinerator plant for further treatment prior to uplift by a licensed waste carrier for disposal at a licensed facility. There will be no net increase in overall biomass produced in the Loch Etive sites arising from the development proposal and no increase in volume of waste produced anticipated. There will be no material change to existing processes dealing with mortality disposal in the farm management area. 3.52. In relation to well boat operations, the applicant has agreed to provide proactive notification of fish movements (i.e. delivery and collection of smolts) to the Council a year in advance to facilitate monitoring of any amenity impacts. This will be secured by planning condition. It is acknowledged that the tidal nature of this site is a limiting factor and may along with instances or poor weather, occasionally result in well boat use out of normal operating hours. However, it is best operational practice to ensure fish loading and harvesting happens during daylight hours to minimise amenity impacts as far as practicable. 3.53. It is considered that the impacts on amenity would be acceptable and would not conflict with LDP2 Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development, NPF 4 Policy 32 or LDP2 Policy 28. LPD2 Policy 29 – Existing Fish Farm Consolidation and Rationalisation requires that redundant equipment be removed from sites to manage waste impacts. A condition is therefore proposed to this effect. 3.54. Net economic impact, including local community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities. 3.55. Scottish Planning Policy identifies the significant contribution aquaculture makes to the Scottish economy, particularly for coastal and island communities. It also recognises that changes in economic activity have potentially greater impacts on communities in rural Scotland than more populated areas. The applicant has submitted further information which details how Mowi Scotland activity supports Scotland’s rural employment levels which allows traditional settlement patterns and land use activities to be maintained and helps to sustain local rural services. 3.56. It is further noted by the applicant that Fish farming is uniquely placed to deliver actions that will contribute to Argyll and Bute Council’s Economic Strategy and the focus areas of People, Place, Planet and Prosperity with the company’s Argyll based operations contributing to social and economic objectives. For example, Mowi’s Loch Etive fish farms provide for 15 direct jobs with more indirect employment provided in geographic support services in areas such as veterinary health. Mowi provides 81 direct jobs across Argyll and Bute, with an average basic salary of £35,059. Recognising the importance of developing and recruiting their workforce from within Argyll and Bute, Mowi is working with UHI Argyll in partnership with Salmon Scotland and other farming companies to develop and deliver an Aquaculture SCQF4 academic qualification. The practical element of this to be delivered in Campbeltown, Lochgilphead and Oban High Schools, with work experience opportunities to be provided with a producer company supporting a trajectory towards securing employment within the sector. Page 103
Page 104
Classification: OFFICIAL Annual Operational Expenditure 3.57. The Loch Etive Fish Farms have a cumulative operational annual expenditure of £15M in 2024. This includes key local expenditures such as labour (£760k), repair and maintenance (£863k), other direct costs (£1.575M) and indirect costs (£364k); a total of £3.56 million in 2024. Expenditure including feed, health and insurance are not sourced locally, although may contribute to the wider national economy. In 2024 Mowi, across all operations, spent over £14.5million directly with local suppliers and service providers based in Argyll and Bute council area. With innovation in pen design and with improving design and capacity of support vessels Mowi has been upgrading pen equipment across Scotland since 2022 to achieve operational efficiencies and improve health and welfare for farm reared salmon. Proposed Capital Expenditure Arising from the Development Proposals 3.58. The total capital expenditure for the development proposals for the Etive 3 fish farm incorporating the new equipment, comprising 6 x 120m pens, 6 x fish nets and new moorings, grids and associated components is approximately £1.2 million. Economic Value of Aquaculture to Argyll and Bute 3.59. Aquaculture is an important part of the Scottish Marine economy. In 2022, aquaculture generated £337 million aGVA, 0.20% of the Scottish economy and 7% of the marine economy aGVA. Aquaculture employed 2,200 people, 0.08% of Scottish employment and 3% of marine economy employment. Of this, Atlantic (Scottish) salmon production accounted for 96 per cent of all aquaculture value to the economy. Scottish salmon is the UK's top food export, with sales worth £844 million in 2024. Exports of Scottish salmon from the Argyll and Clyde regions rose to £125 million last year as demand for Scottish salmon continues to grow. A regional breakdown of annual figures by the sector’s trade body Salmon Scotland confirms that an estimated 15,041 tonnes were exported from Argyll and Bute in 2024, representing around 18 per cent of Scotland’s total exports. There are 109 aquaculture operations across Argyll and Bute, the majority being seawater operations. The sector directly supports 540 jobs in Argyll and Bute, with local fish farms such as the Mowi Loch Etive sites forming part of the economic backbone of rural communities. 3.60. Given the above information it has been demonstrated that the proposed development would have a positive economic impact in accordance with NPF4 Policy 25 – Community wealth Building and NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural development which are supportive of rural economic activity. The proposal would also accord with LDP2 Policy 28, the aquaculture specific policy which requires the economic contribution of aquaculture proposals to be assessed. Potential benefits of sustainable site management proposals, which seek to mitigate or reduce environmental risk from fish farming operations, including escapes, disease and sea lice management or manage risk through adaptive management in response to environmental monitoring. 3.61. NPF4 Policy 1 aims to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate and nature crises while NPF 4 Policy 2 is supportive of developments which have been sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. It is noted that marine aquaculture is seen as possible solution to global food shortages that are predicted to increase as a result of climate change. Wild Atlantic salmon is not a sustainable food source. Page 104
Page 105
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.62. With regard to sustainable site management, the proposed barge will reduce carbon emissions through the use of hybrid technology to power the barge. This is in line with the aims of NPF 4 Policy 1 and Policy 2 which seek to encourage development which minimise emissions from developments. It would also accord with LPD2 Policy – Sustainable design which is supportive of renewable sources of energy. 3.63. In terms of sea lice management and the control of risk, the applicant has submitted supporting information entitled “Implications of Post-Smolt Salmon Production for Local Sea Lice Populations”. This report explains that post-smolt production involves truncated production cycles, growing salmon from salmon from sixes of 70 – 100 g through to about 750 g over a period of about six months. The fish are then transferred to open water pens, when on-growing to harvest size takes place. The Report notes that post-smolt production in inshore waters has the potential to reduce sea lice levels in local waters because of the reduced time the fish are at sea and the regular fallowing engendered by the short production cycles. The regular breaks in production and regular re-stocking with lice-free fish prevents lice populations building up to reportable levels. 3.64. The substantial reduction in lice numbers on the farmed fish has two principal benefits: the risk to wild fish migrating through Loch Etive from infective lice larvae is substantially reduced, and second, the need for medicinal treatments is also substantially reduced, if not obviated. In conclusion, the modelling study suggests that switching production in Loch Etive from traditional farming of rainbow trout to production of post-smolt Atlantic salmon is likely to have significant benefits for both the farmed fish and the local wild fish populations. 3.65. Fewer, larger pens as proposed will reduce stocking density (leading to fish health and welfare benefits) in addition to increasing the efficacy of administering any treatments and undertaking farm maintenance activities. In support of this application, the company has submitted the following documents: • Sea Lice – Policy, Strategy and Efficacy Statement which outlines the measures the company will take to reduce sea lice. • Sea Lice Medicines and Treatment Times • Sea Lice Medicine Minimisation Statement • Farm Management Statement • Escapes Contingency Plan 3.66. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) is in place for all of the Dawnfresh sites in Loch Etive under previous consents. This commits to monitoring and reporting of lice burdens on farmed and wild fish, a framework for cooperation and transparency and a framework for adaptive management with feedback management measures to be taken in response to evidence of negative impacts on wild salmonids. As SEPA has taken regulatory control of sea lice interactions, with the proposed introduction of a national monitoring framework, a planning condition has been attached to require an update of the EMP should the framework mechanisms not be implemented within 6 months of the granting of planning permission. 3.67. SEPA and SGMD have no objections to the proposals and SEPA has confirmed the proposed biomass is reasonable within the scope of the new regulatory framework and have confirmed that an application for a CAR permit was submitted on 27.3.2025 (determination pending). Page 105
Page 106
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.68. It is considered that the proposal would comply with this element of LDP2 Policy 28 and NPF Policy 32. Proposed operational measures which can mitigate or minimise the level of risk of potential impacts (including on other aquatic or coastal interests). 3.69. In addition to the documents to outline the applicant’s proposed approach to managing sea lice (see above), a number of documents have been submitted which relate to the operation of the site. These include: Escapes Contingency Plan, Farm Management Statement, Predator Mitigation Plan; and Waste Management Plan. The applicant has also provided a self-attestation to confirm that the proposed equipment to be used is suitable for this site. Adherence to these matters will be secured through the use of planning conditions. 3.70. Subject to these conditions being complied with the proposal will accord with NPF 4 Policy 32 – Aquaculture and LDP2 Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development. Page 106
Page 107
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX B – LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS OBJECTIONS 1. Chrissie Grant No address given (11.03.2025) 2. Richard Harrap No address given (11.03.2025) 3. Charles Denvir Ivy Cottage Pandy Abergavenny NP7 8HH 12.03.2025 4. Lady Claire Greenaway The Coach House Lois Weedon Towcester NN12 8PJ 12.03.2025 5. Nathalie Service No address given 20.03.2025 6. Veronica Barry Tigh Na Mara Bonawe Argyll And Bute PA37 1RL 21.03.2025 7. Alex Burns 3 Birchlea Drive Giffnock G46 6BP 10.03.2025 8. Maude Caldecott No address given 11.03.2025 9. Iona Gibson No address given 11.03.2025 10. Hazel Barry The Kestrel Bonawe Argyll And Bute PA37 1RL 24.03.2025 11. Miss Freya Macmillan Muckairn Castle Muckairn Estate Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JA 17.03.2025 12. Archie McIntyre 3 Exmoor Close Tiverton EX16 6UR 20.03.2025 13. William Marshall 51 Inglis Green Road Longstone Edinburgh EH14 2EY 25.03.2025 14. Mrs Carol Burnside 45 Nant Drive Oban Argyll And Bute PA34 4NL 25.03.2025 15. Mrs Camilla Trant Cefn Du Welshpool SY21 9ER 16. Peter Dunlop 3 Douglas Gardens Mews Edinburgh EH4 3BZ 11.03.2025 17. James Bolam New Pound Lane Wisborough Green RH14 OEG 12.03.2025 18. Susan Greenaway Lois Weedon House Towcester Northants NN12 8PJ 12.03.2025 19. Susan Jameson No address given 12.03.2025 20. Mr Frazer Fowler Muckairn Castle Muckairn Estate Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JA 21. Thomas Greenaway The Coach House Towcester Northants NN12 8PJ 13.03.2025 22. Ms Sandrine Chadwick The Factors House Muckairn Estate Taynuilt Argyll And Bute PA35 1JA 18.03.2025 23. Peter Barry Tigh Na Mara Bonawe Oban Argyll And Bute 24. Kathleen Hannigan No address given 11.03.2025 25. Abigail Penny 124 City Road London EC1V 2NX 24.03.2025 26. Malcolm Young No address given 25.03.2025 27. George Brew No address given 25.03.2025 28. David Brew No address given 25.03.2025 29. Mr Alan McKnight 35 Stewart Drive WHITBURN EH47 0EN 30. Ronnie Campbell Bonawe 14.04.2025 31. Karima Mould Ivy Cottage Pandy Abergavenny NP7 8HH 11.03.2025 32. Mr Edward Clifton-Brown Manor Farmhouse East Beckham Norwich NR11 8RP 10.03.2025 33. John Gore Tigh Na Ba Taynuilt Argyll 11.03.2025 34. Maggie Service The Cottage 1 Crescent Wood Road London SE26 6RT 11.03.2025 35. Helena Gore Portnamine Tigh Na Ba Taynuilt Argyll 11.03.2025 36. Kathy Longbottom No address given 11.03.2025 Page 107
Page 108
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX C – APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT (25/00093/MFF). Ailsa Craig SPA: Appropriate Assessment by Argyll and Bute Council under Regulations 9A and 11-15 of The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2011 APPRAISAL IN RELATION TO REGULATION 48 OF THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS, &C.) REGULATIONS 1994 AS AMENDED (HABITATS REGULATIONS APPRAISAL) EUROPEAN SITE DETAILS Relevant European site qualifying interest: Name of European site(s) potentially affected: Conservation Objectives for qualifying interests: The Conservation Objectives for each site can be accessed via SiteLink. erio STAGE 1: WHAT IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT Use of pole-mounted top net systems with ceiling mesh dimensions of 100mm or less at existing finfish aquaculture sites in Scotland (Port Na Mine/Etive 3). STAGE 2: IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR NECESSARY TO SITE MANAGEMENT FOR NATURE CONSERVATION? No STAGE 3: IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT (EITHER ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS OR PROJECTS) LIKELY TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE SITE? Breeding gannets have a mean foraging range of 120.4km (±50.0km) and a mean maximum foraging range if 315.2km (±194.2km). Consequently, there is potential connectivity between gannets from one or more of the SPAs listed above and all Scottish marine waters suitable for finfish aquaculture. Page 108
Page 109
Classification: OFFICIAL There is potential for Likely Significant Effect (LSE) arising from incidental entanglement or entrapment of gannets at finfish farms deploying pole-mounted top nets. STAGE 4: APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SITE IN VIEW OF ITS CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES Gannets forage opportunistically on pelagic fish shoals by plunge diving into them from the air and pursuing fish underwater. They may be attracted over substantial distances by presence of other gannets, such that large numbers of birds can quickly gather over a fish shoal. There are several known instances of numbers of gannets becoming entangled and entrapped at finfish farms when attempting to plunge dive into stocked cages through pole-mounted top nets. Entangled birds may suffer fatal injuries and entrapped birds are subject to stress when confined or during subsequent release by site operators, with unknown longer term consequences for individual survival or breeding success. Such interactions with pole-mounted top net systems have potential to undermine maintenance of gannet populations as viable components of relevant SPAs, through negatively impacting population level adult survival rates and / or breeding success. The population of gannets in Scotland is large (243,505 pairs in 2013-14) and continues to grow rapidly (2.9% per annum between 2003-4 and 2013-14). All SPA populations are currently in Favourable Conservation Status with stable populations, as detailed below: Given favourable status and dynamics of gannet populations, high levels of mortality of breeding of adults would be required to undermine SPA conservation objectives. There is currently limited empirical information on interactions between gannets and pole- mounted top nets, but the incidents we are aware of involving multiple birds have been associated with ceiling mesh sizes of 200mm or greater. The adoption of ceiling mesh dimension of 100mm or less is considered, on both theoretical grounds and in light of the currently available evidence, to pose low risk of damaging interactions with gannets. STAGE 5: CAN IT BE ASCERTAINED THAT THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE? It is concluded that there is no Adverse Effect on Site Integrity with respect to breeding gannet populations associated with permitting the adoption of pole-mounted top nets with ceiling mesh dimensions of 100 mm or less at existing finfish aquaculture sites in Scottish waters. The conclusion is however subject to strict planning conditions being applied to all relevant consents (as outlined below and detailed in associated Standing Advice) to ensure Page 109
Page 110
Classification: OFFICIAL avoidance of future Adverse Effect in Site Integrity, including consideration of cumulative and in-combination effects. Additional – to that outlined in Stage 4 – mitigation or modifications that are required to ensure adverse effects are avoided and the reasons for these are set out below: CONCLUSION / ADVICE IN RELATION TO PLAN OR PROJECT In line with the advice provided by NatureScot, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions on the grant of any planning permission, it is considered that no unacceptable impacts will occur to the Ailsa Craig SPA or other interconnected SPAs by the grant of this proposed planning permission. The use of pole-mounted top net systems with ceiling mesh dimension of 100 mm or less at existing finfish aquaculture sites in Scotland can be therefore permitted. Page 110
Page 111
" © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00093/MFF O 1:7,000 0 60 12030 Meters Application Site Page 111
Page 112
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 113
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 25/00734/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Gary Mulvaney Proposal: Erection of garden room to rear of property Site Address: Ettrick Lodge, John Street, Helensburgh, Argyll and Bute G84 8XN DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of a garden room (ii) Other specified operations • None (B) RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be approved subject to planning conditions recommended within this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: N/a (D) HISTORY: 01/00006/LIB – Demolition of former dwellinghouses at 70 John Street – Approved 04.09.2002 00/01963/DET – Demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of three detached dwellings at 70 John Street – Approved 04.09.2001 (E) PUBLICITY: Page 113 Agenda Item 6
Page 114
Site Notice - Conservation Area – Expired 06.06.2025 Listed Building/Conservation Advert - Expired 12.06.2025 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: None (ii) Summary of issues raised: N/a (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 (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist Given that the proposal represents relatively small scale detached garden room within the rear garden of an existing dwellinghouse, it is not considered that the general policy requirement for the Sustainability Checklists would give added value to this assessment; and as such it is considered that all matters, including sustainable siting and development, can be properly assessed on the basis of the submitted information available. ☐Yes ☒No ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No Page 114
Page 115
(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 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas High Quality Environment Policy 73 - Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees (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. Page 115
Page 116
• Third Party Representations • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) (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 (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield Page 116
Page 117
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 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 noted that a determination of an application of his nature for ‘householder’ type of development would normally be delegated to the Head of Planning and Economic Growth (and administered by the Area Team Leader for the Helensburgh, Bute and Cowal planning team). However, in this instance the application requires the consideration of Members as the applicant is an elected Councillor. The proposal is consistent with the settlement strategy set out in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 by reason that it is located on developed land within an identified ‘settlement zone’ and that it is generally compatible with surrounding pattern of built development and land-use; will not result in any materially adverse impact on the natural or historic environment; and will not impact upon service infrastructure including the public / private road network. The main considerations in this instance are limited to matters of siting, scale, form, massing, detailing and material finishes in relation to: (i) the surrounding townscape character (ii) the policy ‘test’ that development “preserves or enhances the character and appearance” of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area (iii) potential impact on listed buildings / structures (iv) potential impact on the natural environment and biodiversity, and (v) impact on residential amenities in terms of: (a) retention of adequate level and quality of private residential open space to serve the occupiers of the application property; and, (b) protection against loss of residential amenities for the occupiers of neighbouring houses including loss of natural daylight through overshadowing, or loss of privacy through ‘overlooking’. These considerations have been assessed in relation to all relevant Local development Plan policy as being acceptable and the detailed assessment is set out in full in Appendix A this Report - Planning Land Use and Policy Assessment (below). In summary, the building is of a modest scale, discreet siting at the rear of Ettrick Lodge and is well screened by existing natural planting along the western boundary with John Street. Officers therefore conclude that this application is consistent with the Local Development Plan Settlement Strategy and that it will not result in any material adverse impact with reference to all other LDP 2 policies. No third party representations have been received. The material considerations do not require consultation. On the above basis, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to planning conditions relating to the detailed design and material Page 117
Page 118
finishes in order to ensure that the building is successfully visually assimilated within tits context and with specific regard to preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area. (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 for the erection of a modestly proportioned and discreetly sited garden room structure sited within the rear private residential curtilage of a dwellinghouse. The site is located within the settlement zone of Helensburgh as identified in the Argyll and Bute Local development Plan 2. The proposed development by reason of discreet sting; simple, low-profile volumetric form; and palette of co-ordinated and recessive material finishes shall relate appropriately to the pattern of built development and will preserve local visual amenity and the character and appearance of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. Additionally, it is not considered that the proposal will have any material impact upon the architectural, historic or cultural qualities of nearby listed buildings / structures, or upon the integrity of their settings. By reason, of scale and siting, the proposed development will preserve the residential amenities of the occupiers of Ettrick Lodge in relation to quality and quantity of private open amenity space; and will not impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in relation to loss of natural light or loss of privacy through over-looking. The proposal will not have any material impact upon the natural environment or biodiversity given its garden location, modest scale and non-intrusive nature of construction. The proposal does not raise any issues regarding service provision or infrastructure. No third-party objections have been received. On the above basis, 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. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan The proposal is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan. (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Norman Shewan Date: 21.05.2025 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 02.06.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 118
Page 119
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 25/00734/PP 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 character of existing buildings nearby and preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with relevant planning policy. Page 119
Page 120
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 25/00734/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. The application site is located within a ‘Settlement Area’ as identified in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (adopted Feb. 2024) (LDP 2) wherein Policy 01 of LDP2 gives a general presumption in favour of sustainable development where it: • is compatible with surrounding uses; provides suitable access and infrastructure • is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed • respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and it complies with all other relevant LDP2 policies 1.2. It is considered that the proposed development accords with the above criteria and is consistent with the settlement and spatial strategy. This assessment is set out in detail below. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site comprises a large, detached dwellinghouse, known as “Ettrick Lodge” located within the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area. 2.2. The property is a large, detached 2-storey house built circa 2002 set on a corner plot on the Northwest corner at the junction of John Street and West Argyll Street. The boundaries with these streets is clearly demarcated by an historic stone wall and/or established hedge set back from the surfaced edge of the adopted public roads behind a wide grass verge that includes ‘street’ trees. Access is by a gate flanked by with stone piers, within the eastern site boundary with John Street, close to its junction with West Argyle Street. There is row of mature trees within the garden behind the boundary wall / hedges with the public street. 2.3. The line of the principal (south) elevation is set back some 29 metres from the boundary with West Argyle Street. The gabled side (west) elevation is set back approximately 7.5 metres from the eastern boundary of the property with John Street. The house is a mixture of hipped and gabled roof forms and incorporates features and detailing that makes references to historic design styles. The roof is dark grey slate, and the walls are primarily an off-white render finish with window openings and bay window structure ‘picked out’ with stone / re-constituted stone masonry. 2.4. The house forms part of a redevelopment of a former dwellinghouse at no. 70 John Street to provide 3 no. houses (Planning Reference 00/01963/DET). The 3 no. houses (including the application property) were developed during the early 2000s. The other two houses are “Springfield” which bounds the application site to the north; and “Augusta” which bounds the application site to the east. Page 120
Page 121
2.5. The proposed development is for the erection of a detached garden room within the garden area to the rear (north) of the house. The rectangular footprint of the structure measures 8.70m x 5.70m. 2.6. Dimensions noted on the application drawings are taken from the edge of the overhanging roof eaves. It is to be sited 2466mm from the rear elevation of the house (at its closest point) and 1100mm from the rear (northern) boundary with the adjoining house “Springfield”. The line of the eastern elevation of the proposed sun room will be 5907 metres in from the eastern boundary of the rear garden with the adjoining house “Augusta.” The line of the side (western) elevation of the proposed garden room is set back some 11.23 metres from the western boundary of the property with John Street. 2.7. The proposed structure is a simple, flat-roofed form. No details of the height of the FFL above existing ground level are evident from the submission. The fascia panel, round the roof, is approximately 354mm. The drawings show that the eaves do not project outwards from the plane of the wall on the east and west elevations. The roof projects minimally beyond the line of the rear wall and some 500mm beyond the line of the south (front) elevation to form a small canopy. The ‘flat’ roof is to be laid at a very shallow fall from south to north and the rainwater will be picked up by a gutter along the south elevation that drains to a downpipe. The drawings not the height from the top of the sole plate to the underside of the fascia as 2500mm. Allowing for an additional 345mm for the roof depth and a reasonable estimate of a FFFL some 200mm above ground level gives an overall maximum height of approximately 3.45 metres above existing ground level. 2.8. The wall panels are to be faced with vertically fixed slatted “Wood Plastic Composite” boards. The specification has optional colour finishes i.e. “midnight”, “silver birch” and “spiced oak.” The flat roof is to be covered with a synthetic rubber single-ply waterproofing membrane. 2.9. The south elevation (directly facing the rear elevation of the house) is to have a centrally positioned pair of glazed doors with a ‘conventional’ window to one side and a full-height, fixed glazed panel on the other side. A similar, full-height, fixed glazed opening is proposed on the west elevation facing towards the boundary of the property with John Street. The rear (north) and the other side (east) elevations do not have any openings. 2.10. Details of external material finishes for the doors /windows; fascia and sofit trim; and rainwater goods is not apparent from the application submission. During the officers site inspection, the applicant advised that the doors and windows will have dark grey / anthracite coloured frames and that the fascia and soffit trims are also proposed to be dark grey / anthracite. 2.11. The principal policy ‘test’ in very general design terms, is whether the proposal, by reason of siting, design and material finishes, appropriately considers and responds to the established character and appearance of its context and does not have a materially adverse impact upon visual amenity. (Potential impact upon the historic environment will be assessed specifically in a later section.) 2.12. It is considered that the proposed siting within the curtilage is visually discreet, ‘tucked into’ the North East corner of the curtilage between the rear elevation of the house and the rear boundary of the curtilage with an adjoining residential property “Springfield.” The western side elevation of the house faces towards the western boundary of the curtilage with John Street, and is set back from this boundary by some 7.5 metres. The Page 121
Page 122
proposed garden room is set back a further 3.75m (approximate) behind the line of the western side elevation of the house. As such the siting respects the ‘building lines’ of existing built development relative to West Argyle Street and John Street. In effect, the proposed structure will be completely visually screened by the house in views from the south from West Argyle Street and in views from the South West from John Street. It will also be screened in views from the North West from John Street by a detached garage within the curtilage of “Springfield.” The siting for the garden room will be visible in views from John Street between the house (“Ettrick Lodge”) and the garage at “Springfield”, however the structure will be set back behind the front elevation of both of these buildings and the existing dense hedge boundary (1.80 metres high) supplemented by two mature trees in the rear garden of Ettrick Lodge will effectively reduce views of the proposed garden room to the top of the structure and even then, it will be viewed through and between tree branches / foliage. On this basis, the building will have a very low level of visual presence within the area. 2.13. The scale of the proposal is relatively small in comparison to surrounding built development. It does take up a significant area of the rear garden, however this will not impact upon visual amenities given the low profile design and discreet siting set out in detail above. 2.14. The building form has a mono-pitched roof at a very shallow angle of fall from front to rear. The front edge of the roof projects beyond the line of the wall to form a shallow canopy. This is arguably not a traditional form, however (and subject to quality of detailing of junctions and materials), it will result in a discreet and restrained volumetric form. It is not unusual for smaller, garden buildings e.g. traditional gazebos to have a formal architectural ‘language’ that is distinct from the house. In addition, it is noted that the proposed structure is very discreetly located and well-screened. On this basis, the scale, form and massing of the proposal is considered to be appropriate in relation to the character and visual amenities of its context. 2.15. It is noted that the material finishes are not natural in character, however notwithstanding this, the proposed mix of materials has the potential to have a consistency across the building that will result in a discreet, co-ordinated and recessive design quality that will ‘sit’ sensitively within the site in relation to surrounding buildings. Officers consider that a combination of dark grey / anthracite coloured trim to the deep fascia panels and similar dark grey coloured window and door frames (in conjunction with the composite wall-cladding panels) is an appropriate combination of materials that results in a very discreet and elegant structure. Aluminium window and door frames are generally preferable to uPVC. This assessment has been made on the basis of verbal advice by the applicant, and as such, officers recommend that planning permission be subject to a condition requiring the development to be implemented using these material finishes unless appropriate alternative materials are agreed in writing by the planning authority. 2.16. Subject to the above recommended condition, the material finishes are considered to meet the NPF4 Policy 2 and LDP2 Policy 9 in terms of being sustainable design. 2.17. The design also has to be assessed with regard to potential impact upon residential amenity. 2.18. NPF4 Policy 16 (g) states that “householder development proposals will be supported where they: Page 122
Page 123
(i) do not have a detrimental impact on the character or environmental quality of the home and the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials; and, (ii) do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking.” 2.19. The proposed structure covers a relatively large proportion of the private residential amenity space serving the application property “Ettrick Lodge”. However, the house will still have a very large area of open amenity space in front of the house and alongside the house. Both of these areas have a high degree of privacy by reason of established high boundary walls / hedgerows and trees. As such, the proposal will preserve a good level of external private open amenity space for the occupiers of “Ettrick Lodge.” The proposed structure is low-profile and set back from the northern and eastern site boundaries such that there will be no material loss of light to neighbouring properties. There are no window door openings facing towards the boundaries with neighbouring houses. Notwithstanding the above, windows and / or doors on these elevations would be at ground floor level and views would be screened by established boundaries. As such, the proposal would not be detrimental to the residential amenities of the application property “Ettrick Lodge”, nor the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of loss of natural light or privacy. 3. Natural Environment 3.1. The application site comprises the private residential curtilage of a dwellinghouse. 3.2. The application submission states that no trees are to be removed in relation to this proposed development. The “Proposed Site Plan - Dwg. No. 0536-002 Revision A” shows the siting of mature trees within the application site in relation to the siting of the proposed garden room structure. These include 3 no. mature trees that run adjacent hedge boundary between the rear garden and John Street. 3.3. The closest tree is some 8.078 metres from the nearest point of the proposed garden room (measured from the centre of the stem / trunk). A site inspection confirms that the proposed siting for the garden room is comfortably outside of the canopy spread of any existing trees. Additionally, foundation works and below-ground preparation is likely to be non-intrusive (relative to mass concrete trench or raft foundations) and as such will not have any material impact on tree root systems. On this basis officers are satisfied that the proposed development will have no impact upon any natural features, trees or biodiversity interests. 3.4. The proposed introduction of the small-scale development within garden ground presents minimal disruption to habitat and nature networks and is considered to have a neutral effect on biodiversity and trees in accordance with NPF4 Policies 3 and 6 and LDP2 Policies 73 and 77. 4. Built / Historic Environment 4.1. The property is within the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area wherein there is a policy requirement to ensure that development preserves or enhances that the character and appearance of the conservation area and responds to the qualifying features for the conservation area designation. Page 123
Page 124
4.2. One of the key elements of the spatial character of this conservation area is generated by the grid layout of the streets with blocks sub-divided to form large curtilages with period villas typically sited towards the upper rear part of the plot with the principal elevation facing southwards over formal, landscaped gardens. The curtilages to the rear of the house are typically smaller than front gardens and often included ancillary, service buildings and structures. The streets often have wide grass verges with street trees and boundaries with residential properties are typically well-defined by stone walls and / or mature natural hedgerow / tree planting. Whilst the application property and its directly adjoining neighbours are relatively modern houses they do share many of the above features / characteristics. 4.3. It is considered that the proposed outbuilding responds to this traditional typical pattern of built development by reason of it being sited behind the rear of the house and set back behind the line of the side elevation of the house that faces John Street. It is clearly subservient to the principal building on the site by reason of siting, scale, form and material finishes. Whilst the design and materials are contemporary in character, subject to control of material finishes by means of planning condition, the proposed structure will have a compact, co-ordinated and restrained appearance appropriate to a ‘garden’ type structure. It is therefore considered the proposal would have a neutral visual impact thereby preserving the character and appearance of the Upper Helensburgh Conservation Area within which the property is located. As such, the proposal is consistent with the relevant Conservation Area Policies. 4.4. The closest listed buildings to the application site are 1-14 (inclusive) Glenan Gardens, a late 9th Century terrace of houses fronting onto the south side of West Argyle Street between John Street to the East and William Street to the West. In addition, there are Category B listed structures in the form of two pairs of later 19th Century, Victorian ‘Provost’ lamps located on John Street near to the site. The northernmost pair is located within the curtilage of no. 51 John Street (located on the SW corner of John St. and West Montrose Street. The southernmost pair of Category B listed ‘Provost’ lamp standards are located outside of no. 68 John Street just south of its junction with West Argyle Street. 4.5. The siting of these above listed buildings and structures in relation to the application site is included for completeness and to demonstrate that potential impact upon the setting of listed buildings / structures has been made. However, give the very modest scale and nature of the proposal combined with its very discreet siting in relation to the existing pattern of built development and established boundary features officers consider that the proposal will have a very limited visual impact generally and will have no material impact specifically on the historic or cultural setting of these nearby listed buildings / structure. Page 124
Page 125
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " """ "" " " " " "" " " " " " " " """ " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " "" "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00734/PP O 1:1,000 0 9.5 194.75 Meters Application Site Page 125
Page 126
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 127
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 18 JUNE 2025 SHORT-TERM LET LICENSING: LICENCE RENEWALS AND REVISION TO STL POLICY 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report recommends that Committee considers amendments to the Councils Short-Term Let (‘STL’) Licensing Policy (‘the policy’) to reflect the renewal process with three-year licensing, the associated renewal fee, and recommend approval to Council. 1.2 The Councils current Short-term Let Policy revised in September 2024 reflected the challenges of determining first time applications for short-term lets across Argyll and Bute. Introduced in 2022 through Scottish Government legislation, work has been concentrated on developing an effective licensing system within Regulatory Services, to determine 3535 applications with the focus on determining all existing host applications by September 2025. However, the first tranche of renewal applications are expected from September 2025, and the Council requires to amend its Policy to reflect our renewal processes and agree a renewal fee. 1.3 The Council’s functions as licensing authority are funded directly by income raised from licence application fees. The fees are intended to fully recover the costs of delivering a licensing scheme. Renewal fees proposed will fund delivery of this three- year licensing scheme for the period 2026-29 1.4 It is recommended that Committee (i) considers and supports 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. (ii) recommend to Council approval of these proposals, as outlined in (i) above. Page 127 Agenda Item 7
Page 128
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 18 JUNE 2025 SHORT-TERM LET LICENSING: LICENCE RENEWALS AND REVISION TO STL POLICY 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 The licensing scheme was brought in by the Scottish Government under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that Committee (i) considers and supports 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. (ii) recommend to Council, approval of these proposals as outlined in (i) above. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The aim of the licensing scheme is to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also aims to balance the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets with the needs and concerns of local communities to ensure the people providing short-term lets are suitable 4.2 It’s been challenging introducing and delivering the new STL licensing scheme within Argyll and Bute given its large tourism sector. Our focus has been on determining 3535 first-time applications and as of the 27 May 2025, 2498 Short-term let licences have been issued. The remaining 668 existing host applications fall to be determined by the 30 September 2025 and there are 117 new applications being processed. Its also worth noting that there are on average 20 new applications made each month. Table 1 Detail Number Total number of applications received 3535 No of STL licences issued 2498 No of applications withdrawn/surrendered/invalid applications 150/41/61 No of existing host applications to be determined 668 Aim to determine all by 30 September 2025 Page 128
Page 129
No of new applications to be determined 117 Note: Figures as of 27/05/2025 4.3 Whilst the majority of licences will fall for renewal between 2027/29, there are a small number of licences which fall to be renewed from June 2025. Accordingly, renewal procedures and processes have been developed and require approval by Council. The intention is: (i) Renewal applications will be considered in line with existing processes, with consultation taking place with Police Scotland, Scottish Fire & Rescue Service and internal Council services. Where objections are received and cannot be resolved, these will be referred to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee for determination in the normal manner. (ii) The renewal period will be for a three-year period, consistent with initial licences and the other civic government licences issued by the Council, unless there are circumstances which justify a shorter time period. This will commence from the date of expiry of the previous licence, NOT three years from the date of issue. (iii) When an application is made to renew a licence timeously, the existing licence will continue in effect until such time as a decision is made on the renewal application. It is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure that their licence is renewed prior to its expiry date. (iv) Where an application for a licence renewal is submitted after the expiry of an existing licence, the licence will be treated as an initial licence (as opposed to a licence renewal application) and the operator will therefore be unlicensed until a new licence is issued. This is unless the application is made within the statutory grace period set out in Paragraph 8(5A) of Schedule 1 to the 1982 Act. It would be a criminal offence to continue to let the property without a licence being in place. (v) It is proposed that the renewal fee is the same as the new application fees as detailed in the table 2 below. This fee reflects the work involved in the checking, processing, and determination of a three year renewal application, associated necessary property inspections, considering objections, and for enhanced monitoring and enforcement of the scheme. If approved, the fee structure will thereafter be included in the annual setting of fees for all licence categories, as part of the Council’s annual budget process. 4.4 The revised Short-Term Let Licensing Policy (see Appendix 1) is provided for members’ consideration. This introduces a revised Section 8 Licence Duration and Renewal, detailing the Councils renewal processes and reflecting the proposals in 4.2 in more detail 4.5 Fees: It is proposed that the renewal fee is the same as the new application fees as detailed in the table 2 below, to provide the income levels for the Councils expenditure to deliver the licensing scheme for 2026-29. This fee reflects the work involved in the checking, processing, and determination of a three year renewal application, associated necessary property inspections, considering objections, and for enhanced monitoring and enforcement of the scheme. If approved, the fee Page 129
Page 130
structure will thereafter be included in the annual setting of fees for all licence categories, as part of the Council’s annual budget process. Table 2 Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence New application Renewal New application Renewal Up to 4 269.15 269.15 376.35 376.35 5 to 8 376.35 376.35 538.30 538.30 9 to 12 591.90 591.90 807.50 807.50 13 to 20 753.90 753.90 1076.70 1076.70 21 and over 969.50 969.50 1345.85 1345.85 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 To support the short-term let sector to continue operating and providing safe accommodation to guests, the Council requires to have appropriate arrangements in place to receive and determine application for renewal of licences. The reports’ recommendations deliver these requirements. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy: Consistent with the Council’s Corporate Plan and statutory duty. 6.2 Financial: Licensing scheme is to be self-financing from income levels. 6.3 Legal: Meets Council’s mandatory duty under Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-Term Lets) Order 2022. 6.4 HR: None. 6.5 Customer Service 6.6 Risk: Council’s legal duty will be met through revision of the Policy 6.7 Climate Change: Supports climate change and environment standards 6.8 Fairer Scotland Duty 6.9 Equalities - protected characteristics: No adverse impact on protected characteristics 6.10 Consumer Duty: 6.11 Island Communities: Licensing scheme will be consistently applied across the whole of Argyll and Bute 6.12 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing: Ensures that short-term lets offer safe and appropriate accommodation Page 130
Page 131
Kirsty Flanagan Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green 28/05/2025 For further information contact: Alan Morrison, Senior Manager- Regulatory Services and Building Standards (alan.morrison@argyll-bute.gov.uk) APPENDICES Appendix 1: Revised Short-term Let Licensing Policy (revised June 2025) Page 131
Page 132
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 133
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Appendix 1 Short-term Lets Licensing Approved Policy Statement Page 133
Page 134
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Contents Foreword 1. Background 2. Timescales For Applying 3. Definitions 4. Applications And Notification 5. Objections And Representations 6. Determination Of Application 7. Right Of Appeal 8. Licence Duration And Renewal 9. Licence Conditions 10. Temporary Exemptions And Licences 11. Provisional Licences 12. Variation Of A Licence 13. Transfer Of A Licence 14. Enforcement And Compliance 15. Suspension And Revocation Of A Licence 16. Planning Permission 17. Equality 18. Fees Appendix 1 Contact Details Appendix 2 Hearing Procedure Appendix 3 Mandatory Conditions Appendix 4 Additional Conditions Page 134
Page 135
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Foreword This policy statement is a revision of the document approved by Argyll and Bute Council on the 28 September 2023. A copy of the report is available online at (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Argyll and Bute Council, 28/09/2023 10:00. The revised Policy Statement provides guidance for applicants, licence holders, members of the public and Council officers on the licensing system for short-term lets. This policy statement will be reviewed and revised when necessary. Document Management Revision Date Approved Reason STL Policy Statement v1 29 September 2022 Approved by Council To implement scheme STL Policy Statement 1.1 10 July 2023 Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager Clarification to STL hearing procedure Appendix 2 STL Policy Statement v2 28 September 2023 Approved by Council Review of policy to reflect legislative and guidance changes, and learning from year 1 of scheme. STL Policy Statement v3 20 December 2024 Approved by Council To implement the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2024, address issues identified through operational work and feedback from the sector. Link to Committee papers STL Policy Statement v4 29 May 2025 To specify licence renewal policy/arrangements Page 135
Page 136
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On 19th January 2022, The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2022 (“the 2022 Order”) was approved by the Scottish Parliament. The 2022 order came into force on 1st March 2022 and inserts new legislative provisions into the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (“the Act”). The 2022 Order was amended by The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2023 (“2023 Order”) which came into force on 31 March 2023.The 2022 Order was further amended by The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2024 (“2024 Order”) which came into force on 31st August 2024 1.2 The Orders introduce a new mandatory licensing system for short-term lets which local authorities were required to establish by 1st October 2022. 1.3 Prior to the introduction of the legislation, there was no requirement to licence short-term lets and, therefore, local authorities did not have the ability to regulate these types of premises. 1.4 The licensing scheme was enacted by the Scottish Government with the aim to ensure short-term lets are safe, address issues faced by neighbours, to facilitate local authorities in knowing and understanding what is happening in their area, and handling complaints effectively. It also enabled local authorities to ensure the people providing short-term lets are suitable. The legislation aims to make sure that the economic and tourism benefits from short-term lets are balanced with the needs and concerns of local communities. 2. TIMESCALES FOR APPLYING 2.1 Since 1 October 2023, existing hosts and operators (those using accommodation to provide short term lets before 1 October 2022 and who applied for a licence prior to 1 October 2023) can only continue to operate if they either held a licence, or their application was yet to be determined. 2.2 New hosts or operators cannot lawfully operate (i.e. take bookings or receive guests) until their licence has been determined and they have been granted a licence. 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1 A short-term let is defined in the 2022 Order as the use of residential accommodation provided by a host in the course of business to a guest, where all the following criteria are met – Page 136
Page 137
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 (a) the guest does not use the accommodation as their only or principal home (b) the short-term let is entered into for commercial consideration (c) the guest is not - (i) an immediate family member of the host (ii) sharing the accommodation with the host for the principal purpose of advancing the guest’s education as part of an arrangement made or approved by a school, college, or further or higher educational institution, or (iii) an owner or part owner of the accommodation (d) the accommodation is not provided for the principal purpose of facilitating the provision of work or services by the guest to the host or to another member of the host’s household (e) the accommodation is not excluded accommodation (f) the short-term let does not constitute an excluded tenancy. Commercial consideration - this includes money and a benefit in kind (such as a provision of a service or reciprocal use of accommodation). Guest – this means a person who occupies accommodation under a short- term let Host – this means a person who is the owner, tenant or person otherwise in control over occupation and use of the accommodation Immediate family member – a guest is deemed to be an immediate family member of the host if they are – (a) your partner (spouse, civil partner or someone you live with as if you were married to them), (b) you or your partner’s parent, grandparent, child, grandchild or sibling, (c) the partner of one of your parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren or sibling. Excluded accommodation – this means accommodation which is, or is part of- (a) an aparthotel Page 137
Page 138
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 (b) premises in respect of which a premises licence within the meaning of section 17 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 has effect and where the provision of accommodation is an activity listed in the operating plan as defined in section 20(4) of the 2005 Act (c) a hotel which has planning permission granted for use as a hotel (d) a hostel (e) residential accommodation where personal care is provided to residents, including guest rooms provided at that accommodation for the purposes of visiting residents (f) a hospital or nursing home, including guest rooms provided at the hospital or nursing home for the purposes of visiting residents of the hospital or nursing home (g) a residential school, college or training centre (h) secure residential accommodation (including a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short-term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation, or accommodation used as military barracks) (i) a refuge (j) student accommodation (k) accommodation which otherwise requires a licence for use for hire for overnight stays (l) accommodation which is provided by the guest (m) accommodation which is capable, without modification, of transporting guests to another location (n) a bothy (o) accommodation owned by an employer and provided to an employee in terms of a contract of employment or for the better performance of the employee’s duties or (p) guest rooms in sheltered housing which are provided for the purposes of visiting residents at that housing 3.2 Please note that if you have an HMO licence for your property, you still need a short-term let licence if it is also to be used for short- Page 138
Page 139
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 term lets. This is the case whether or not you live at the premises covered by your HMO licence. 3.3 Self-catering property in the grounds of a licensed hotel is excluded. It is recommended that short-term let hosts take their own independent legal advice on whether or not their accommodation would require a short-term let licence. The Licensing Authority cannot provide legal advice on whether or not a premises is excluded from requiring a short-term let licence. Excluded tenancy – an excluded tenancy means a tenancy which falls within any of the following definitions: (a) protected tenancy (within the meaning of section 1 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984, (b) an assured tenancy (within the meaning of section 12 of the Housing (Scotland) 1988 Act), (c) a short assured tenancy (within the meaning of section 32 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988), (d) a tenancy of a croft (within the meaning of section 3 the Crofters (Scotland Act 1993), (e) a tenancy of a holding situated outwith the crofting counties (within the meaning of section 61 of the Crofters (Scotland Act 1993) to which any provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931(8)) applies, (f) a Scottish secure tenancy (within the meaning of section 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001), (g) a short Scottish secure tenancy (within the meaning of section 34 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001), (h) a 1991 Act tenancy (within the meaning of section 1(4) of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (i) a limited duration tenancy (within the meaning of section 93 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (j) a modern limited duration tenancy (within the meaning of section 5A of Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (k) a short limited duration tenancy (within the meaning of section 4 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (l) a tenancy under a lease under which agricultural land is let for the purpose of its being used only for grazing or mowing during some Page 139
Page 140
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 specified period of the year (as described in section 3 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003), (m) a private residential tenancy (within the meaning of section 1 of the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016), (n) a student residential tenancy 3.4 There are four types of licences for short-term let accommodation. Any licence granted must be for either- (a) Secondary letting (b) Home letting (c) Home sharing, or (d) Home letting and home sharing 3.5 The different types of licences are defined as follows - (a) Secondary letting – this means a short-term let involving the letting of property where you do not normally live (b) Home letting - this means using all or part of your home for short- term lets whilst you are absent (c) Home sharing – this means using all or part of your own home for short-term lets whilst you are there. This includes guest houses or bed-and-breakfast accommodation within the host’s principal residence. 3.6 A separate licence is required for each of your premises. However, a single licence may be issued in respect of unconventional accommodation where there is more than one separately bookable property on the site. Dwellinghouse means for these purposes, an independent dwelling (with its own front door, kitchen and bathroom) such as a house, flat, cottage etc. You do not need a separate licence for short-term lets within the same dwellinghouse. For example, if you are letting out two rooms in your home, that would be covered by one licence. Unconventional accommodation – this means residential accommodation that is not defined as a dwelling house and would include residential accommodation such as glamping pods and yurts. Page 140
Page 141
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 4. APPLICATION AND NOTIFICATION 4.1 All applicants must complete an online short-term let licence application form. The application should be submitted online at Short term lets licence | Argyll and Bute Council (argyll-bute.gov.uk) Paper applications will be made available upon request to short- termlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk or Tel: 01546 605519. 4.2 Applicants require to pay in full the application fee as part of the online application process or if submitting a paper application form by making a payment to Argyll and Bute Council by contacting Short- Term Lets on 01546 605519. 4.3 The Council provides a pre-application checklist on its website to assist applicants in ensuring that their application includes appropriate details and documentation. This documentation includes gas and electrical safety certificates, layout drawings of the property as required by Scottish Fire and Rescue. 4.4 Under the terms of the Act, all applicants who apply for a short-term let licence must display a notice for a period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the application was submitted to the licensing authority, at or near the property to which the application relates, so that it can be conveniently read by the public. 4.5 The notice shall state that an application has been made for a licence, the main facts of the application, that objections and representations in relation to the application may be made to the licensing authority and how to make objections or representations. A template will be provided to the applicant once an application is submitted. 4.6 Applicants are required to certify compliance that they have displayed the site notice as soon as possible after the 21 days has expired. A template will be provided to the applicant once an application is submitted. 4.7 A copy of the application may, on request, be provided to Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service by the local authority. A copy may also be made available to: - Argyll and Bute Council’s Planning Department - Argyll and Bute Council’s Building Standards service - Argyll and Bute Council’s Environmental Health service - Loch Lomond and the Trossachs Parks Authority (where the property is within the National Park) Page 141
Page 142
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 4.8 All personal data will be processed in line with the following privacy notices: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/privacy/civic-government-licensing 4.9 Licensing authorities have 9 months to process applications from new hosts 4.10 The licensing authority will take into consideration the following when assessing occupancy – size and type of property, number of bedrooms, maximum number that can be accommodated safely and potential for noise and nuisance to neighbours. 5. OBJECTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The 1982 Act permits any member of the public to submit an objection or representation in relation to an application for a short-term let licence. 5.2 To enable Argyll and Bute Council, as licensing authority (“the Council”) to entertain an objection or representation, it must be: (a) in writing (email is sufficient), (b) specify the grounds of the objection or the nature of the representation, (c) specify the name and address of the person making it, (d) be signed off by them or on their behalf (e) be received by the Council within 28 days from when the notice of application is displayed. 5.3 Anonymous objections or representations will not be considered. “Anonymous” includes objections or representations where the person making the objection or representation cannot be contacted using the contact information provided. 5.4 Late objections or representations may be considered, entirely at the Council’s discretion, if the Council is satisfied that there is sufficient reason as to why it was not made in the time required. 5.5 The objection should be relevant to the statutory grounds that can be taken into consideration when refusing an application. These are set out in the 1982 Act - (a) the applicant or anyone else detailed in the application form is not a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence, Page 142
Page 143
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 (b) the activity would be carried out by a person other than the applicant who, if he had made the application himself, would have been refused, (c) the premises is not suitable for the conduct of the activity, having regard to - (i) the location, character or condition of the premises, (ii) the nature and extent of the proposed activity, (iii) the kind of persons likely to be in the premises, (iv) the possibility of undue public nuisance, public order; or public safety, (v) where there is other good reason 5.6 It should detail clearly the reasons for the objection/representation and why the applicant and/or the premises are not suitable. 5.7 A copy of the objection or representation will be provided to the applicant and will include your name and address. All personal data will be processed in line with the following privacy notice: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/privacy/civic-government-licensing 6. DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 6.1 Everybody named on the application form will be subject to the fit and proper test. Every application form will require consultation with Police Scotland who will carry out background checks. 6.2 Licensing authorities are responsible for determining whether you are a fit and proper person to be the holder of a licence for short- term lets. Consideration will be given to a wide range of information including relevant criminal convictions, other relevant information provided by Police Scotland, any previous disqualifications from being a private landlord, previous revocations of a HMO licence and providing false or misleading information in your application form. 6.3 If there are no objections or adverse representations to a short-term let licence application, the application will be determined under delegated powers by the Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services. 6.4 If an objection or adverse representation is submitted in relation to the short-term let licence application and, this cannot otherwise be resolved, the application will be subject to a hearing at a meeting of Page 143
Page 144
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 the Council’s Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. 6.5 The person submitting the objection or representation will be invited to attend the meeting of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee and speak to their objection/representation. You will be given at least 14 days’ notice of the hearing date. 6.6 The applicant or their representative will be invited to attend the meeting and given the opportunity to state why the application should be granted. 6.7 The Committee will be able to ask questions of both parties and, thereafter, decide whether to grant or refuse the application. The grounds for refusing an application are set out at paragraph 5.5. 6.8 Applications will be heard in public unless required to be taken privately on the grounds of disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1, Schedule 7A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 6.9 A copy of the Council’s hearing procedure can be found at Appendix 2. 6.10 Both the applicant and the person(s) making an objection/representation can request a statement of reasons for the decision within 21 days of the date of the decision. The statement of reasons will be provided within 10 days of that request. 6.11 If your application for a licence is refused, you cannot reapply for a licence within 1 year of that decision, unless there has been a material change in your circumstances since then. 7. RIGHT OF APPEAL 7.1 The applicant and the person(s) making an objection/ representation have a right of appeal to the Sheriff Court. 7.2 However, they only have this right if they have taken every opportunity to state their case to the Committee as has been made available. 7.3 The Sheriff can uphold an appeal only if the sheriff considers that the licensing authority erred in law, based their determination on any incorrect material fact, acted contrary to natural justice or exercised their discretion in an unreasonable manner. Page 144
Page 145
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 7.4 Any appeal must be lodged by way of a summary application with the relevant Sheriff Clerk’s office within 28 days of the date of the decision appealed against. 7.5 Parties should seek their own independent legal advice in relation to an appeal. 8. LICENCE DURATION AND RENEWAL 8.1 The duration of the licence applies from the date on which the licence comes into force. This will be specified on the licence together with the expiry date of the licence. 8.2 Under the Act, a Licensing authority can grant a STL licence for a period of three years or such shorter period as the licence authority determine. The duration of an initial licence will normally be three years from the date of issue. 8.3 The renewal period will be for a three-year period, consistent with initial licences and the other civic government licences issued by the Council, unless there are circumstances which justify a shorter time period. This will commence from the date of expiry of the previous licence, NOT three years from the date of issue. 8.4 When an application is made to renew a licence timeously, the existing licence will continue in effect until such time as a decision is made on the renewal application. It is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure that their licence is renewed prior to its expiry date. 8.5 Where an application for a licence renewal is submitted after the expiry of an existing licence, the licence will be treated as an initial licence (as opposed to a licence renewal application) and the operator will therefore be unlicensed until a new licence is issued. The Council has discretion, on good cause being shown, to allow an application to count as a renewal up to 28 days after the expiry of a licence. It would be a criminal offence to continue to let the property without a licence being in place. 8.6 There may be exceptional circumstances where a licence period shorter than the three years, as detailed above, will be considered. Reasons for considering a shorter duration licence would include: a) Previously upheld complaints about a let; b) New “non- traditional” lets which require specific additional conditions (i.e. tree houses); c) Concerns that the host will comply with the conditions for three years (i.e. poor history of compliance of providing evidence that conditions are being met); or d) feedback from Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Page 145
Page 146
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 8.7 If a renewal application is refused by the Licensing authority, the existing licence will remain in effect for a period of 28 days from the date of the decision, the appeal period, and where an appeal has been lodged, until such time as the appeal has been determined by the Court. 9. LICENCE CONDITIONS 9.1 The Act sets out a number of mandatory licence conditions which apply to all short-term let across Scotland. A list of these conditions can be found at Appendix 3. 9.2 In addition to the mandatory licence conditions which apply to all short-term lets, licensing authorities may impose additional conditions. These enable the licensing authority to respond to local challenges and concerns relative to specific types of short-term letting. 9.3 There are a number of additional conditions which will apply to all short-term let properties. There also some specific additional conditions which may only apply to certain types of short-term let properties or to properties following investigation of concerns. A list of the additional licence conditions which may apply to your short- term let licence can be found at Appendix 4. 10. TEMPORARY EXEMPTIONS AND TEMPORARY LICENCES 10.1 The Council will not consider applications for temporary exemptions or temporary licences under any circumstances. This position will be kept under review. 11. PROVISIONAL LICENCES 11.1 The 2024 Order introduced provisional short term let licences. A provisional short term let licence can be applied for in relation to any premises that are yet to be or are in the course of being built for the use as a short term let. The type of letting that can be applied for with such provisional short term let licence is Secondary Letting, Home Sharing, Home Letting and Home Sharing and Home Letting. 11.2 All applicants who wish to apply for a provisional short term let licence must complete an application. The application should be submitted online at Short term lets licence | Argyll and Bute Council (argyll- bute.gov.uk) Paper applications will be made available upon request to short-termlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk or Tel: 01546 605519. Page 146
Page 147
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 11.3 Applicants require to pay in full the application fee as part of the online application process or if submitting a paper application form, by making a payment to Argyll and Bute Council by contacting Short-Term Lets on 01546 605519. 11.4 This application must also be accompanied by a provisional planning certificate. This is a certificate which is signed on behalf of the planning authority which states that: (a) planning permission approved, (b) planning permission in principle or outline planning permission under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 has been obtained in respect of the construction of the premises, or (c) no such planning permission is required. 11.5 A copy of the application for a provisional short term let licence will be sent to Police Scotland, Scottish Fire & Rescue Service and the Council’s Environmental Health service for consultation. In addition, a site notice will be issued to the applicant, as detailed in section 4.3-4.5 of this Policy. If an objection/ representation is received from a service/agency or a member of the public, which cannot otherwise be resolved, the application will be referred to the Argyll and Bute Licensing Committee for determination, as detailed further in sections 5 and 6 of this Policy. 11.6 If a provisional short term let licence is granted, no mandatory conditions or additional licence conditions will apply to the provisional short term let licence. The licence holder is not permitted to operate the premises as a short term let i.e. accept bookings or guests, until the provisional short term let licence is confirmed, as detailed in sections 11.13 and 11.14 of this Policy. 11.7 When the construction of the short term let premises is complete, the provisional licence holder may then apply to the Council to confirm the provisional licence. As laid down in the 2024 Order, a provisional short term let licence must be confirmed before the premises can operate as a short term let. All applicants who wish to apply for the confirmation of a provisional short term let licence must contact the Council via Short-termlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk), together with the appropriate documentation and information and full payment of the application fee. This application for confirmation must also be accompanied by: (a) the provisional short term let licence; (b) if the provisional planning certificate which accompanied the provisional short term let licence application in respect of the premises consisted of outline planning permission or planning permission in principle, a planning certificate (as detailed further in section 16 below); (c) a building standards completion certificate and (d) such other information as the Council, as the licensing authority, may reasonably require. Page 147
Page 148
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 11.8 An application for confirmation of a provisional short term let licence will be sent to Police Scotland, and where appropriate, Scottish Fire & Rescue Service and the Council’s Environmental Health service. 11.9 If an objection or adverse representation is submitted in relation to the short-term let licence application, cannot otherwise be resolved, the application will be subject to a hearing at a meeting of the Council’s Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. 11.10 At confirmation stage, the Council provides a pre-application checklist on its website to assist applicants, in providing supporting documentation, includes appropriate details and documentation. This documentation includes gas and electrical safety certificates, layout drawings of the property as required by Scottish Fire and Rescue 11.11 There is no requirement for the applicant to display a site notice under section 4.4- 4.6 of this Policy and there is no opportunity for members of the public to lodge objections/representations to an application for confirmation of a short term let licence 11.12 Where the Council receive an application and fee for the confirmation of the provisional short term let licence application, if it is satisfied that following construction of the premises, the applicant would be able to secure compliance with the mandatory conditions and additional conditions, must confirm the licence 11.13 Following determination of an application for the confirmation of the provisional short term let licence application, a short term let licence will be issued to the applicant for the premises to which the provisional short term let licence related to. Upon confirmation being issued by the Council, the short term let licence will be for the duration of the period of the provisional licence or any extension granted by the Council. 11.14 A provisional short-term let licence is treated as revoked if it is not confirmed within 3 years after the date on which it was issued unless this period is extended by the Council. A provisional licence holder must submit a formal request in writing to the Council (Short- termlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk) for an extension to the Council, a minimum of 2 months from the date of expiry. An extension will be considered where the Council is satisfied that completion of the construction has been delayed by factors outwith the provisional short term let licence holder’s control 12. VARIATION OF A LICENCE 12.1 A licensing authority may, at any time, whether or not upon an application made to them by the holder of the licence, vary the terms on any grounds they think fit. Page 148
Page 149
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 12.2 A variation application cannot, however, be used to substitute a new holder of the licence for the existing one (i.e. effectively to transfer a licence) but would apply where the short-term let host is a corporate entity, and the incoming purchaser is added as a director to that body corporate. 13. TRANSFER OF A LICENCE 13.1 The 2024 Order introduced a provision which will permit a licence holder to apply to the council to transfer their short term let licence (including a provisional short term let licence) to another individual, termed a “transferee” 13.2 All applicants who wish to apply for the transfer of a short term let licence must complete an online application or circumstances agreed with the Council, on the prescribed hard copy. The application must also be accompanied by: (a) the short term let licence to which it relates or, if that is not possible, a statement of reasons for the failure to produce the licence; (b) where the applicant is not the owner of the short term let premises or the land on which it is located: i. the name and address of the owner (or, as the case may be, each owner), and ii. ii. a declaration from the owner (or, as the case may be, each owner), or a person authorised to act on their behalf, that they consent to the application; (c) where the applicant shares ownership of the premises or the land on which the premises are located: (i) the name and address of each owner, and (ii) a declaration from each owner, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, that they consent to the application. (d) where the short term let licence is held in joint names: (i) the name and address of each licence holder, and (ii) a declaration from each licence holder, or a person authorised to act on their behalf, that they consent to the application. (e) such other information as the Council, as the licensing authority may reasonably require. 13.3 A copy of the application for the transfer of a short term let licence will be sent to Police Scotland for consultation. If an Page 149
Page 150
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 objection/representation is received from Police Scotland in relation to the transfer of the short-term let licence application which cannot otherwise be resolved, the application will be subject to a hearing at a meeting of the Council’s Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. 13.4 If there is no objection/representation, the transfer application will be granted. 13.5 There is no requirement for the applicant to display a site notice and there is no opportunity for members of the public to lodge objections/representations to the transfer application 13.6 If a transfer application is granted, there will be no change to the expiry date of the short term let licence to which the application relates to. 14. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 14.1 Unlicenced short-term lets 14.1.1 It is a criminal offence to carry on an activity for which a licence is required without having a licence and without reasonable excuse. 14.1.2 The Scottish Government has set out the following timescales for hosts and operators. Please note the rules are different depending on whether you are a new host/operator or an existing host/operator - New hosts/operators - From 1 October 2022 you cannot accept bookings until you have obtained a short term let licence - From 1 October 2022, you cannot operate while your short term let application is being determined Existing hosts/operators - Applications submitted by existing hosts/operators (i.e. trading on or before 30th September 2022) which are yet to be determined, can continue to operate pending a final decision by the Council, under a deemed granted classification. 14.1.3 The Council will maintain a public register of short-term let licence applications and licences granted. This will allow members of the public to check the licensing status of a premises being used as a short-term let. 14.1.4 Complaints about suspected unlicensed hosts/operators should be directed to Police Scotland. Page 150
Page 151
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 14.2 Licenced short-term lets 14.2.1 Hosts and operators must ensure that any advert or listing placed on or after they are granted a licence number includes their licence number. 14.2.2 Hosts and operators must ensure that they comply with all the mandatory and any additional conditions on their licence. It is a criminal offence to fail to comply with a licence condition if a licence holder has not used all due diligence to prevent the offence. 14.2.3 It is also a criminal offence for a licence holder, without reasonable cause, to fail to notify the licensing authority of a material change of circumstances. 14.2.4 The Council may undertake premises site visits as part of the application process and throughout the duration of the licence to ensure compliance with licence conditions. 14.3 Complaints about licenced short-term lets 14.3.1 In the first instance, guests should raise any concerns about their short-term let with their host/operator or letting agent/platform. If the issue is sufficiently severe, then the Council may become involved. 14.3.2 A complaint must be relevant to the matters that the Council can take into consideration. Frivolous or vexatious complaints will not be considered. 14.3.3 The Council can consider matters relating to the suitability of the licence holder, threats to public safety or public order or whether a condition of the licence has been contravened 14.3.4 These issues would include a host/operator exceeding the number of people staying at the premises, serious disturbance or antisocial behaviour or concerns about the maintenance and safety of the premises. These complaints can be directed to short-termlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk 14.3.5 Please note that the Council cannot consider complaints in relation to the quality of a guest’s stay or specific contractual matters between the guest and the host/operator as this is outside the scope of the licensing scheme. 14.3.6 Complaints will aim to be acknowledged within 5 working days. A full response advising you of the outcome may take some time if the complaint requires further investigation. The complaint may also need to be directed to other departments within the Council other services such as Police Scotland or Scottish Fire and Rescue Page 151
Page 152
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Service for input. Complainants will be kept up to date with progress if there is a delay in a full response being provided. 14.3.7 Premises site visits may be undertaken by the Council as part of an investigation into a complaint. 14.4. Enforcement 14.4.1 It is possible that some complaints may require enforcement action from the Council. 14.4.2 The Act provides for several options for enforcement action if justified. This includes additional licence conditions being attached, enforcement notices or variation, suspension or revocation of the licence or in more serious circumstance pursuing a prosecution. 14.4.3 The Council recognises the importance of having compliance issues monitored in order to ensure licensed Short-term lets are complying with licence standards and not causing an unnecessary nuisance to the community, nearby residents or neighbours. As such it will carry out a risk-based approach to enforcement, using a range of escalating informal measures, prior to an Enforcement Notice being issued and subsequently a complaint being made to the Committee in relation to the STL licence. 14.4.4 An enforcement notice will set out the matters constituting a breach or likely breach, the action required to rectify or prevent the breach and the date by which the action must be taken. 14.4.5 If the matter is not addressed satisfactorily by the licence holder, the Council may then consider a variation, suspension or revocation of the licence. 14.4.6 Routine enforcement visits are funded from the application fee. However, an inspection charge will be applied for any follow up visit (s) necessary because of non-compliance with licence conditions. 15. SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF A LICENCE 15.1 A licensing authority may, whether upon a complaint made to them or not, suspend or revoke a licence. 15.2 A licensing authority may order the suspension or revocation of a licence if in their opinion – - the holder of the licence is no longer a fit and proper person to hold the licence Page 152
Page 153
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 - the licence holder is managing the property on behalf of someone who would have been refused the grant or renewal of the licence - a condition of the licence has been contravened 15.3 The period of suspension can be the unexpired portion of the duration of the licence, or such shorter period as the licensing authority may fix. The effect of the suspension shall be that the licence shall cease to have effect during the period of suspension. 16. PLANNING PERMISSION 16.1 The requirement for planning permission is a separate matter from licencing of short-term lets. Whether or not planning permission is required for the use of a dwelling for short- term let purposes will firstly depend on whether it is located within a Short-Term Letting Control Area. Outwith control areas, the requirement for planning permission would be a matter for the planning authority to determine on a case by case basis, depending on the nature and circumstances of the property and the manner in which it is operated. Hosts and operators must comply with both planning and licensing law. 16.2 The Council is the relevant planning authority for the Argyll and Bute area located outwith the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The National Park Authority is the planning authority for the full extent of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park designation. Short-Term Letting Control Areas: 16.3 There is a separate legislative process from licensing which allows the Council and the National Park Authorities, as planning authorities, to establish short-term let control areas. The purpose of control areas is to help planning authorities manage high concentrations of secondary letting (where it affects the availability of residential housing or the character of a neighbourhood) and to restrict or prevent short-term lets in places or types of buildings where it is not appropriate. 16.4 Within a control area designated by a planning authority, use of a property for short-term letting will always require express planning permission. The host or operator must make an application for planning permission or already have planning permission before they apply for a licence. Page 153
Page 154
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 16.5 There are currently NO Control Areas within Argyll and Bute although it is noted that consideration and determination of a STL Planning Control Areas is a matter for both the Council and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. Information generated from the STL licensing scheme, including number, location and type of licence, may inform this work. 16.6 Please note that planning authorities could designate control areas after a premises has already obtained a short-term let licence. Licence holders would be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the mandatory condition by submitting a planning application or application for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development (CLUD) as soon as possible after the control area is designated. If a CLUD or planning permission is refused, this may result in the licence being refused, varied or revoked as appropriate Outwith Control Areas: 16.7 Outside of a control area, it is for the planning authority to consider whether any change of use of a dwelling house is material and, therefore, requires planning permission, although you may also require permission where a premises has resulted in the subdivision of a residential plot where it is an annex or garage that has been converted. This is determined on a case by case basis and will depend very much on the nature of the dwelling to be let, its relationship to neighbouring land uses, its servicing arrangements, and the manner in which the property will be operated. 16.8 Hosts and operators are, therefore, encouraged to engage with the relevant planning authority prior to submitting a licence application to confirm whether they require planning permission or a certificate of lawful use of development. Detailed enquiries can be submitted for review and assessment through the Council’s chargeable pre-application advice service: Pre-Application Guidance (argyll-bute.gov.uk) Contact details for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park planning service: Planning - #LetsDoNetZero -Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park (lochlomond-trossachs.org) 17. EQUALITY 17.1 The Equality Act 2010 Act introduced a new public sector equality duty which requires public authorities, including the Committee, to try and eliminate discrimination, promote equality and good relations across a range of protected characteristics. Page 154
Page 155
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 17.2 Prior to the Committee implementing this policy an equality impact assessment was undertaken. This can be viewed using the following link Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessments (argyll- bute.gov.uk) 18. FEES 18.1 Licensing authorities are required to charge fees in respect of processing and determining, the consideration of applications, the issue of duplicate licences and other matters. They must ensure that the fees are sufficient to cover their administrative expenses and are reviewed periodically. 18.2 Licensing fees are non-refundable. Whether or not a licensing application is granted, the Council incurs significant costs in processing the application. 18.3 The Council has considered the following criteria in the process of determining the fees: - The size of the premises - The number of rooms at the premises The number of guests who can reside at the premises The type of short-term let 18.4 Licence fees are set by the Council annually as part of the budget process. Fees and charges is available via this link to the Councils website. (Council fees and charges | Argyll and Bute Council (argyll-bute.gov.uk) 18.5 For indicative purposes the application and renewal fees for short term let licensing for 2025/26 are shown below: Application and Renewal – full licence Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence New application Renewal New application Renewal Up to 4 269.15 269.15 376.35 376.35 5 to 8 376.35 376.35 538.30 538.30 9 to 12 591.90 591.90 807.50 807.50 13 to 20 753.90 753.90 1076.70 1076.70 21 and over 969.50 969.50 1345.85 1345.85 Page 155
Page 156
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Provisional licence Guest capacity applied for (including children under the age of 10) Home sharing or home letting licence Secondary letting licence Up to 4 £42.30 £164.35 5 to 8 £143.15 £326.30 9 to 12 £379.90 £595.50 13 to 20 £541.90 £864.70 21 and over £757.50 £1133.85 Other types of application Fee Variation of licence / change in circumstances £91.70 Confirmation of a provisional STL licence application £212.00 Duplicate licence £48.80 Transfer of a licence £91.70 Application to extend provisional short-term let licence £91.70 Enforcement costs Officer hourly cost in 15 minute intervals (e.g. inspection of a premises in response to complaints/intelligence or where concerns are flagged at the application process by a consultee) * £112.30/hour *Where a fee is charged for such a visit, a report must be provided to the host or operator within 28 days of the inspection, unless otherwise agreed. Otherwise, the 50% of the fee will be refunded to the licence holder 18.6 Routine enforcement visits are funded from the application fee. However, an inspection charge will be applied for any follow up visit (s) necessary because of non-compliance with licence conditions. 18.7 The fee charged is weighted according to guest numbers with the unit fee being the cost of dealing with an application for 5-8 person secondary let licence. Applications for premises with larger numbers of guests are likely to require more enquiries, or attract more representations, or objections, which require to be dealt with as part of the application. Guest capacity (People) Home sharing and home letting licence Secondary let licence Up to 4 0.5 0.7 5 to 8 0.7 1.0 9 to 12 1.1 1.5 13 to 20 1.4 2.0 21 and over 1.8 2.5 Page 156
Page 157
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 APPENDIX 1 – CONTACT DETAILS Telephone – 01546 605519 Email – Short-termlets@argyll-bute.gov.uk Postal Address – Short-Term Lets Licensing, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT Page 157
Page 158
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 APPENDIX 2 – HEARING PROCEDURE SHORT TERM LET LICENSING PROCEDURE FOR HEARINGS Applications will be heard in public unless required to be taken privately on the grounds of disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 1. Chair will welcome, introduce everyone, outline the procedure and receive confirmation that both the Applicant and objector(s) accept the hearing procedure. If the representations/objection(s) were submitted timeously and there are no spent convictions to be considered, then proceed directly to number 4. 2. If the representation/objection (from the Police or any other party) has been received late the Committee must hear details as to why the representation / objection was late and be satisfied that there is sufficient reason why it was not made in the time required. If they agree that, then the representation/ objection can be heard, otherwise it should be disregarded. The process to be followed should be that the objector is invited to provide reasons as to why the submission was late. Members may ask any follow up questions of the objector. The applicant must then be asked if they have any objections to the late submission being accepted. The Committee must take all comments into account when deciding whether to accept the late submission. 3. If spent convictions are to be referred to then the guidance notes for spent convictions should be followed for each conviction. 4. The hearing procedure below should now be followed: (a) The Licensing Officer will present the report to the Committee. (b) The applicant or Agent, will be given the opportunity to speak in support of their application. (c) Any objector, or Agents, will have the opportunity to question the Applicant or Agent on matters related only to their presentation. (d) Objectors, or their Agents, will have the opportunity to speak in support of their objection. (e) The Applicant, or Agent, will have the opportunity to question any Objector, or Agent, on matters related only to their presentation. Page 158
Page 159
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 (f) The Committee Members, through the Chair may ask questions of the Applicant or Objector or their Agents for clarification. (g) The Chair will invite the Objector, or Agent to briefly summarise their points if they wish. (h) The Chair will invite the Applicant, or Agent to briefly summarise their points if they wish. (i) The Chair will confirm that everyone has had a fair hearing. (j) The Committee will debate and determine the application in the presence of Applicant/Objector. DECISION 1. A determination of the case will be made at the conclusion of the hearing and all parties will be notified of the decision in writing within 7 days of the hearing and shall be advised of his/her right to seek written reasons and appeal to the Sheriff Court. 2. If the decision of the Committee is to suspend, refuse or refuse to suspend a licence, a relevant person has a right to request within 28 days of the meeting, the Committee’s reasons for arriving at their decision. Unless the circumstances of the case justify immediate suspension, the suspension shall not take effect for 28 days from the date of the decision. 3. Appeals against the decision of the Committee must be lodged with the Sheriff Clerk within 28 days of the date of the decision. Page 159
Page 160
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 APPENDIX 3 - MANDATORY LICENCE CONDITIONS Agents 1. Only those named as a holder of the licence can carry out the day to day management of the short-term let of the premises. Type of Licence 2. The holder of the licence may only offer the type of short-term let for which the licence has been granted. Fire Safety *3. The holder of the licence must ensure the premises has satisfactory equipment installed for detecting, and for giving warning of — (a) fire or suspected fire, and (b) the presence of carbon monoxide in a concentration that is hazardous to health. 4. The holder of the licence must keep records showing that all upholstered furnishings and mattresses within the parts of the premises which are for guest use, or to which the guests are otherwise permitted to have access, comply with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988. Gas Safety 5. Where the premises has a gas supply – (a) the holder of the licence must arrange for an annual gas safety inspection of all gas pipes, flues and appliances in the premises (b) If, after an annual inspection, any appliance does not meet the required safety standard, the holder of the licence must not allow a short-term let of the premises until the works necessary to bring the appliance to the required safety standard have been carried out. Electrical Safety 6. Where there are electrical fittings or items within the parts of the premises which are for guest use, or to which the guests are permitted to have access, the holder of the licence must – (a) ensure that any electrical fittings and items are in (i) a reasonable state of repair, and Page 160
Page 161
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 (ii) proper and safe working order (b) arrange for an electrical safety inspection to be carried out by a competent person at least every five years or more frequently if directed by the competent person, (c) ensure that, following an electrical safety inspection, the competent person produces an Electrical Installation Condition Report on any fixed installations, (d) arrange for a competent person to (i) produce a Portable Appliance Testing Report on moveable appliances to which a guest has access, and (ii) date label and sign all moveable appliances which have been inspected. 7. In determining who is competent, the holder of the licence must have regard to guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers under section 19B(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006(2). Water Safety: Private Water Supplies 8. Where the Where the premises are served by a private water supply, the licence holder must comply with the requirements on the owners of private dwellings set out in the Water Intended for Human Consumption (Private Supplies) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. Water Safety: Legionella 9. The holder of the licence must assess the risk from exposure to legionella within the premises, whether or not the premises are served by a private water supply. Safety and Repair Standards 10. (1) The holder of the licence must take all reasonable steps to ensure the premises are safe for residential use. (2) Where the premises are subject to the requirements of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006, the holder of the licence must ensure that the premises meet the repairing standard. Page 161
Page 162
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Maximum Occupancy 11. The licence holder must ensure that the number of guests residing on the premises does not exceed the number specified in the licence. Information to be displayed 12. The holder of the licence must make the following information available within the premises in a place where it is accessible to all guests – (a) a certified copy of the licence and the licence conditions (b) fire, gas and electrical safety information (c) details of how to summon the assistance of emergency services (d) a copy of the gas safety report (e) a copy of the Electrical Installation Condition Report, and (f) a copy of the Portable Appliance Testing Report. (g) instructions as to what guests should do in the event that the carbon monoxide alarm sounds, (h) if there is a mobile gas cabinet heater in the premises, safety instructions as to the operation and movement of that mobile heater Information to be displayed 13. Where the premises is in a short-term let control area for the purposes of section 26B of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), the holder of the licence must, where the use of the premises for a short-term let requires planning permission under the 1997 Act, ensure that either - (a) an application has been made for planning permission under the 1997 Act and has not yet been determined, or (b) planning permission under the 1997 Act is in force. Page 162
Page 163
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Listings 14. (1) The holder of the licence must ensure that any listing or advert (whether electronic or otherwise) for the short-term let of the premises includes – (a) The licence number, and (b) a valid Energy Performance Certificate rating if an Energy Performance Certificate is required for the premises, in accordance with the Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008 (2) The holder of the licence must ensure that any listing or advert (whether electronic or otherwise) for the short-term let of the premises is consistent with the terms of the short-term let licence. Insurance 15. The holder of the licence must ensure that there is in place for the premises - (a) valid buildings insurance for the duration of the licence, and (b) valid public liability insurance for the duration of each short- term let agreement. Payment of fees 16. The holder of the licence must pay any fees due to the licensing authority in respect of the licence on demand. False or misleading information 17. The holder of the licence must not provide any false or misleading information to the licensing authority. Interpretation 18. In this schedule — “Electrical Installation Condition Report” means a report containing the following information — (a) the date on which the inspection was carried out (b) the address of the premises inspected, Page 163
Page 164
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 (c) the name, address and relevant qualifications of the person who carried out the inspection, (d) a description, and the location, of each installation, fixture, fitting and appliance inspected, (e) any defect identified, (f) any action taken to remedy a defect, “Energy Performance Certificate” means a certificate which complies with regulation 6 of the Energy Performance of Buildings (Scotland) Regulations 2008, “Gas safety report” means a report containing the following information — (a) the date on which the appliance or flue was checked, (b) the address of the premises at which the appliance or flue is installed, (c) a description of and the location of each appliance or flue checked (d) any safety defect identified, (e) any remedial action taken, (f) confirmation that the check undertaken complies with the requirements of an examination of— (i) the effectiveness of any flue, (ii) the supply of combustion air, (iii) subject to heat (iv) its operating pressure or heat input or, where necessary, both, (v) if it is not reasonably practicable to examine its operating pressure or heat input (or, where necessary, both), its combustion performance (vi) its operation so as to ensure its safe functioning (g) the name and signature of the individual carrying out the check, and Page 164
Page 165
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 (h) the registration number with which that individual, or that individual’s employer, is registered with a body approved by the Health and Safety Executive for the purposes of regulation 3(3) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 Page 165
Page 166
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 APPENDIX 4 - ADDITIONAL LICENCE CONDITIONS SHORT-TERM LETS: PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Introduction Argyll and Bute Council consider that additional conditions should be applied to short-term let licences in its area. These derive from (a) the Part 2 Guidance for licensing authorities and (b) issues relating to guest safety which the Council has identified in its area and for which it considers additional licence conditions are necessary and appropriate. The “Part 2” additional conditions, are based closely upon the examples provided by the Scottish Government. These conditions would be generally- applicable to all licences, although some, for instance those relating to impact noise are not necessary for detached premises with no party structures. The guest safety conditions are intended for specific premises where certain facilities and amenities are provided for the use of guests (this would require a declaration on the application form). Alternatively, the conditions could be generally-applied with a conditional clause; the draft guest safety conditions are in the latter form. Antisocial Behaviour 1. The licence holder must take reasonable steps to manage the premises in such a way as to seek to prevent and deal effectively with any antisocial behaviour by guests to anyone else in the short-term let and in the locality of the short-term let. 2. The licence holder must take reasonable steps to: - Ensure that no disturbance or nuisance arises within or from the premises, for example by explaining the house rules to the guests; - Deal effectively with any disturbance or nuisance arising within or from the premises, as soon as reasonably practicable after the licence holder is made aware of it; and - Ensure that any vehicles belonging to guests are parked lawfully, for example explaining where any designated parking spaces are to be found and highlighting any local rules. 3. The licence holder must take reasonable step to ensure that guests do not play amplified music within the garden or external areas where or at times it would impact neighbouring residents. Page 166
Page 167
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 Privacy and Security 1. The licence holder must manage the premises in such a way as to respect and protect the privacy and security of neighbours. 2. The licence holder must ensure: - Guests know and understand any particular rules applying to shared areas and entrances; - Guests understand that shared doors should be properly and securely closed after use; and - The provision of access codes or keys to guests cannot be used by guests to gain access to shared areas after they have finally departed. Noise Control in Flatted Premises 1. Where the premises are a flat above another dwellinghouse, the licence holder must: - Fit and maintain carpets (with appropriate underlay) or other suitable noise suppressing floor covering to the floors of bedrooms, living room and any hallway. - Take reasonable steps to ensure that guests do not first arrive or finally depart from the property between the hours of 2300 and 0700. The licence holder must advise guests of this condition as part of their booking terms and conditions. Littering and Waste Disposal 1. The licence holder must provide adequate information on, and the facilities for, the storage, recycling and disposal of waste. 2. The licence holder shall be responsible for advising residents of the refuse collection day and for making arrangements for the presentation of bins for collection at the appropriate time and day. 3. The licence holder must advice guests of: - Their responsibilities; - The use of the bins etc. provided for the premises; and - The location of the nearest recycling area or recycling point. Page 167
Page 168
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 4. The licence holder must: - Clearly label bins as belonging to the premises; - Maintain the bins storage area and the exterior of the premises in a clean and tidy condition. Damage to Property The licence holder shall not affix a key box, or any other device to facilitate guest entry to the premises, to any public or jointly-owned private structure or infrastructure without the prior written permission of the relevant authority or owner(s). The licence holder must be able to produce the written permission to the licensing authority on demand. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR GUEST SAFETY Legionella risk assessment – spa pools/hot tubs 1. Where a spa pool, including any electric hot tub or wood-fired hot tub, is provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must install, maintain and operate it so it can be safely operated and used by guests. 2. The licence holder shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable: - That any such spa pool is installed and maintained in accordance with the guidance in HSE publication HSG282 Control of legionella and other infectious agents in spa-pool systems. - That there is a risk assessment and written scheme of control for Legionella in respect of any such spa pool. - That the risk assessment and written scheme of control are lodged with any application for a licence and are to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. - That, prior to any spa pool being brought into use for the first time during the period of the licence, at least 28 days’ notice shall be given to the licensing authority and the risk assessment and written scheme of control shall be submitted at the time of such notice. 3. The licence holder shall provide guests with information on the safe use of the spa pool in accordance with the written scheme of control. 4. The licence holder shall not provide or install any inflatable hot tub for the use of guests without the prior written approval of the licensing Page 168
Page 169
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 authority. Note that the licensing authority will not give approval in respect of inflatable hot tubs not intended for commercial use and which cannot conform to the requirements of HSG282. Guest safety – swimming pools and ponds 1. Where a swimming pool or swimming pond is installed and provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable measures to ensure water quality and bather safety. 2. The licence holder shall ensure: - In the case of swimming pools, and swimming ponds, that a pool safety operating plan is prepared and lodged with any application for a licence and is to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. The licence holder shall have regard to the guidance in HSE publication HSG179 Health and safety in swimming pools. - In the case of swimming pools and swimming ponds, that a bather safety plan is prepared and lodged with any application for a licence and is to the satisfaction of the licensing authority. The bather safety plan shall include measures to minimise the risk of bathers getting into difficulty, to facilitate the rescue of bathers in difficulty and to call for the assistance of emergency services where necessary. - That, prior to any swimming pool or pond being brought into use for the first time during the period of the licence, at least 28 days’ notice shall be given to the licensing authority and the pool safety operating plan and bather safety plan shall be submitted at the time of such notice. 3. In this condition, “swimming pond” means an outdoor body of untreated water in natural ground which has been excavated or modified to provide a facility for swimming. It does not include natural watercourses, fresh-water lochs or coastal waters. 4. This condition does not apply to swimming pools which are staffed and operated with continuous poolside supervision by trained lifeguards. Risk of Carbon Monoxide – Barbecue Huts 1. Where a barbecue hut is installed and provided for the use of guests, the licence holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that the risk from Carbon monoxide is minimised. Page 169
Page 170
• Argyll and Bute Short-term Let Licensing Policy- V4: 28/05/2025 2. The licence holder shall, so far as is reasonably practicable: - Install, maintain and operate the barbecue hut only in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. - Install and maintain in proper working condition a Carbon monoxide monitor and alarm within the barbecue hut. - Provide guests with instructions on the safe use of the barbecue hut, the symptoms of Carbon monoxide poisoning and the actions to be taken in an emergency. - Not permit the use of the barbecue hut by persons under the age of 18 except in the presence of a person over the age of 18. - Not permit the use of a barbecue hut as sleeping accommodation. 3. For the purposes of this condition, a barbecue hut is a purpose-built, structure including a fixed hearth, and fixed ventilation supplying both fresh air to the hearth and extracting the products of combustion from the occupied space. Wood Burning Stoves/open fires 1. The Licence holder must declare to the Council the use of any solid fuel, multi-fuel or wood burning stoves/ open fires) for both indoor and outdoor use for guest use. 2. The Licence holder must ensure that any solid fuel, multi-fuel or wood burning stoves/ open fires are included within the properties fire risk assessment; and provide information to guests on their safe operation. Page 170
Page 171
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT & ECONOMIC GROWTH 18th June 2025 BT Public Telephone Kiosk Removal Consultation 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The purpose of this brief report is to bring to the members of this committee’s attention the current consultation that BT is undertaking to potentially remove 74 Public Call Boxes (PCB’s) across Argyll and Bute. 1.2 The consultation is due to end on the 12 August 2025 ahead of the next meeting of this committee. Ofcom has outlined that a 90 day public consultation must be undertaken to remove any PCB’s. 1.3 The consultation Period begins when notification is placed in one of the Kiosks in question. 1.4 All impacted Community Councils have been notified with some already having returned their response. 1.5 The community is being asked if they wish to Adopt the Kiosk, refuse removal and Retain the Kiosk, or agree to its removal. 1.6 The full list of Kiosks can be found in appendix 1 of this report 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that PPSL: (a) Acknowledge this consultation. (b) Delegate power to Chair and Vice Chair of PPSL Committee to approve Officer’s response to BT before the consultation deadline of 12/08/25 with decisions that are received from impacted communities to Adopt/Retain/Remove kiosks. (c) In the event of a Community Council not responding, confirm whether the Council’s response should be block or permit removal of kiosk. Page 171 Agenda Item 8
Page 172
3.0 DETAIL & BACKGROUND 3.1 This brief report is to bring to the attention of the members of this committee a BT consultation on Public Call Boxes (PCB’s). 3.2 This consultation is the proposal to remove 74 PCB’s in various locations across Argyll and Bute. As part communities are being asked if they would like to adopt a kiosk for another purpose, agree to its removal or object to its removal, which they can do by contacting the council’s planning department. 3.3 Full list of PCB’s in the consultation can be found in appendix 1 3.4 Communication sent to impacted Community Councils can be found in appendix 2 3.5 Before BT can remove PCB’s Ofcom have stated that a notice must be clearly visible in a Kiosk that they are planning to remove for a minimum of 90 days. 3.6 Additionally the Council’s Planning Department has the ability to block any such removal. However, there must be a valid reason to block the removal unlike the previous local Veto 3.7 As the use of PCB’s has declined significantly over the years BT are looking to rationalise their network of Public Payphones. 3.8 Several years ago BT undertook a previous rationalisation programme which resulted in the removal of numerous PCB’s, however Ofcom stepped in and said that the criteria BT were using was not adequate and did not consider the lack of mobile coverage particularly in rural areas. 3.9 With regards to the criteria changes that Ofcom made for a PCB removal, they have also changed to criteria which a council can object to a PCB removal. 3.10 In identifying the relevant criteria against which ‘Protected PCBs’ would be assessed, Ofcom took account of the reasonable needs of PCB users and proposed that BT and would not be able to remove a PCB where it met any of the following criteria: • does not have coverage from all four mobile network providers; • is sited at an accident or suicide hotspot; • has made 52 or more calls over the past 12 months; or • there is a relevant exceptional circumstance which means the PCB is needed. 3.11 We circulated a communication to 24 impacted local Community Councils highlighting that PCB’s in their area were under review. We have currently had a response from a few of them indicating a mixture of all 3 options. Several wishing to adopt a kiosk for an alternative use. Some have highlighted that although the payphone hadn’t been used, they think it should stay for resilience Page 172
Page 173
purposes. 3.12 Having spoken to BT they are unclear how this resilience justification for retention would be taken. As the whole point of exercise was to remove kiosks that are not used. 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy: n/a 4.2 Financial: n/a 4.3 Legal: n/a 4.4 HR: n/a 4.5 Customer Service: n/a 4.6 Risk: n/a 4.7 Climate Change: Potential loss of storm resilience 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty: n/a 4.9 Equalities – Protected Characteristics: n/a 4.10 Socio-economic Duty: Loss of communication method of disadvantaged individuals 4.11 Island Communities: Potential loss of storm resilience/ potential alternative use case of current obsolete infrastructure. 4.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): Potential loss of emergency communication method. Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead: Cllr Kieron Green Friday 6th June 2025 For further information contact: Iain MacInnes Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk 0154660464 Page 173
Page 174
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Ref. Call box ID Address Post Code Relevant Public Body Removal proposal sent Representation period ends Mobile coverage Mobile Coverage OK? Total calls (last 12 months) Helpline calls (last 12 months) High frequency accident location High frequency suicide location BT Evidence of other reasonable need EE Three O2 Vodafone <52 calls <12 calls or Helplines Partnership approve No pattern of serious accidents in close proximity Not identified by Helplines Partnership No other evidence 1 01369703190 PCO PCO1 SANDHAVEN SANDBANK DUNOON PA23 8QW Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 2 01369704431 PCO1 ROBERTSON TERRACE SANDBANK DUNOON PA23 8PT Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 1 0 0 0 0 3 01369840297 PCO PCO1 SUB POST OFFICE KILMUN DUNOON PA23 8SB Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 5 0 0 0 0 R 4 01369860211 GLENBRANTER/STRACHUR PCO1 STRACHUR CAIRNDOW PA27 8DJ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 A 5 01369860220 O/S TEL EXCH PCO1 STRACHUR CAIRNDOW PA27 8DG Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 3 3 Y 1 0 0 0 0 R 6 01369860234 PCO PCO1 STRATHLACHLAN CAIRNDOW PA27 8DB Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 3 4 4 Y 5 0 0 0 0 R 7 01436673233 PCO 1 COLLINS ROAD HELENSBURGH G84 7UA Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 R 8 01436673886 O/S NAVAL PROVOST HQ PCO1 CHURCHILL SQUARE HELENSBURGH G84 9HL Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 9 01436810272 ADJ TO SUB POST OFFICE PCO1 THE FAIRWAY GARELOCHHEAD HELENSBURGH G84 0BA Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 3 0 0 0 0 A 10 01436842225 PCO PCO1 FAIRFIELD GARDENS KILCREGGAN HELENSBURGH G84 0HS Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 A 11 01436842294 ADJ TO POST OFFICE PCO1 SHORE ROAD COVE HELENSBURGH G84 0LR Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 3 Y 5 0 0 0 0 12 01496810200 PCO JCT SCHOOL STREET PCO1 MAIN STREET BOWMORE ISLE OF ISLAY PA43 7JH Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 4 3 Y 14 0 0 0 0 13 01496810272 PCO JCT BEECH AVENUE PCO1 ELDER CRESCENT BOWMORE ISLE OF ISLAY PA43 7HU Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 3 Y 13 0 0 0 0 14 01496810426 PCO PCO1 STANALANE BOWMORE ISLE OF ISLAY PA43 7LA Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 3 Y 12 0 0 0 0 A 15 01496820209 PCO PCO1 LAGG ISLE OF JURA PA60 7XQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 16 01496820211 NEW TERMINAL/FEOLIN FERRY PCO2 PCO2 CRAIGHOUSE ISLE OF JURA PA60 7XX Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 A 17 01496820232 ARDFIN PCO1 PCO1 CRAIGHOUSE ISLE OF JURA PA60 7XX Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 18 01496840287 PCO OPP PORT ASKAIG HOTEL & PO PCO1 PORT ASKAIG ISLE OF ISLAY PA46 7RB Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 4 4 Y 1 0 0 0 0 19 01496840635 PCO JUNCTION A846 PCO1 LAOIGAN PLACE KEILLS ISLE OF ISLAY PA46 7RQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 20 01496850300 A847 OPP PUBLIC TOILETS AT PIER ENTRANCE PCO1 BRUICHLADDICH ISLE OF ISLAY PA49 7UN Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 4 4 Y 5 0 0 0 0 21 01496850301 PCO JUNCTION MAIN STREET PCO1 SCHOOL STREET PORT CHARLOTTE ISLE OF ISLAY PA48 7TW Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 3 Y 6 0 0 0 0 22 01496860225 PCO OPP 7 PCO1 CAMPBELL PLACE PORTNAHAVEN ISLE OF ISLAY PA47 7SQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 4 Y 2 0 0 0 0 23 01496860245 PCO PCO1 MAIN STREET PORT WEMYSS ISLE OF ISLAY PA47 7SR Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 24 01546510220 OPP. HOTEL PCO1 KILMARTIN LOCHGILPHEAD PA31 8RQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 25 01546602278 PCO PCO1 CHALMERS STREET ARDRISHAIG LOCHGILPHEAD PA30 8DX Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 26 01546830210 BELLANOCH S.P.O. GARAGE BELLANOCH LOCHGILPHEAD PA31 8SN Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 27 01546830231 PCO AT COFFEE SHOP CRINAN BASIN PCO1 CRINAN LOCHGILPHEAD PA31 8SW Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 3 Y 10 0 0 0 0 28 01583421257 PCO OS 7 MUASDALE COTTAGES PCO1 MUASDALE TARBERT PA29 6XD Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 29 01583431230 OPP KILORAN HOUSE OPP THE MANSE PCO1 CARRADALE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QG Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 1 0 0 0 0 30 01583441220 PCO OPP TAYINLOAN VILLAGE HALL PCO1 TAYINLOAN TARBERT PA29 6XG Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 1 0 0 0 0 31 01583441296 FERRY TERMINAL NEAR PUBLIC TOILETS PCO1 FERRY ROAD TAYINLOAN TARBERT PA29 6XQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 15 0 0 0 0 32 01583505231 PCO PCO1 ISLE OF GIGHA PA41 7AA Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 33 01586551143 BURNBANK PLACE OUTSIDE 20 LONGROW PCO1 BURNBANK STREET CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6JD Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 32 0 0 0 0 34 01586552035 PCO OPP CAR PARK PCO1 PENINVER CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QP Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 35 01586552733 PCO JUNCTION RANGE ROAD PCO1 RALSTON ROAD CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6LF Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 36 01586554815 PCO O/S 103 JCT HILLSIDE RD PCO1 MILLKNOWE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6NJ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 37 01586810284 PCO NEAR 1 BURNBANK COTTAGES PCO1 DRUMLEMBLE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6PW Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 38 01586820200 AT DRUMALEA FARM COTTAGES PCO1 KILKENZIE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QD Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 39 01631562509 PCO PCO1 LONGSDALE ROAD OBAN PA34 5JU Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 18 0 0 0 0 40 01631562577 O/S POST OFFICE PCO1 JANE ROAD DUNBEG OBAN PA37 1QE Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 3 3 Y 7 0 0 0 0 41 01631562977 PCO PCO1 KNIPOCH PLACE OBAN PA34 4ED Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 4 3 Y 9 0 0 0 0 42 01631563282 PCO PCO1 CORRAN ESPLANADE OBAN PA34 5AQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 32 0 0 0 0 43 01631563644 PCO PCO1 MCCAIG ROAD OBAN PA34 4YD Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 8 0 0 0 0 44 01631564851 PCO PCO1 LOCHNELL ROAD DUNBEG OBAN PA37 1QJ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 3 4 Y 29 0 0 0 0 45 01631565360 ENTRANCE TO MILLPARK PCO1 MILLPARK TERRACE SOROBA ROAD OBAN PA34 4JH Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 46 01631760255 PORT RAMSAY PCO1 LISMORE OBAN PA34 5UN Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 47 01680300320 PCO PCO1 POST OFFICE SALEN ISLE OF MULL PA72 6JD Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 48 01680300339 PCO PCO1 AROS ISLE OF MULL PA72 6JP Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 49 01680812498 PCO INFORMATION OFFICE THE PIER HEAD CRAIGNURE ISLE OF MULL PA65 6AY Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 A 50 01680814226 PCO PCO1 CROGGAN ISLE OF MULL PA63 6AH Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 51 01688302312 PCO PCO1 ROCKFIELD ROAD TOBERMORY ISLE OF MULL PA75 6PN Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 1 0 0 0 0 52 01688302337 PCO PCO1 CREAGAN PARK ERRAY ROAD TOBERMORY ISLE OF MULL PA75 6PT Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 1 0 0 0 0 53 01688302385 PCO PCO1 ALBERT STREET TOBERMORY ISLE OF MULL PA75 6PJ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 54 01700504091 NEAR ASCOG CHURCH PCO1 ASCOG ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9EU Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 55 01700504103 CORNER OF ESPLANADE PCO1 ARGYLE STREET ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0AT Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 3 Y 4 0 0 0 0 56 01700504155 PCO PCO1 ARGYLE PLACE ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0BA Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 16 0 0 0 0 57 01700504302 PCO PCO1 HIGH STREET ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9AR Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 7 0 0 0 0 58 01700504329 PCO PCO1 SHORE ROAD PORT BANNATYNE ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0LQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 59 01700504474 JCT GROSVENOR ROAD AT OLD CRAIGMORE PIER PCO1 MOUNTSTUART ROAD ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9LD Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 60 01700504481 PCO PCO1 ARDBEG ROAD ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0NL Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 3 4 4 Y 2 0 0 0 0 61 01700831233 PCO PCO1 FIRST FLOOR KILCHATTAN BAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9NL Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 3 Y 0 0 0 0 0 62 01852200282 PCO PCO1 AT SUB POST OFFICE ARDUAINE OBAN PA34 4XQ Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 63 01852314229 PCO PCO1 CULLIPOOL SUB POST OFFICE CULLIPOOL OBAN PA34 4TX Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 64 01852314236 ADJ WAITING ROOM /FERRY SLIP PCO1 CULLIPOOL SUB POST OFFICE CULLIPOOL OBAN PA34 4TX Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 4 Y 3 0 0 0 0 65 01866822596 PCO PCO IN CAR PARK INVERAWE FISHERIES INVERAWE TAYNUILT PA35 1HU Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 66 01879230360 FRONT OF STONE SHED PCO1 UP FROM MIDDLE PIER ISLE OF COLL PA78 6TB Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 4 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 67 01880760221 COUR MARCH COTTAGE CARRADALE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QL Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 68 01880760229 PCO PCO1 AT SUB POST OFFICE SKIPNESS TARBERT PA29 6XT Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 1 0 0 0 0 69 01880760257 CLAONAIG FERRY TERMINAL PCO1 SKIPNESS TARBERT PA29 6YG Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 3 3 3 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 70 01880820025 PCO PCO1 COASTGUARD OFFICE HARBOUR STREET TARBERT PA29 6UD Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 71 01880820221 PCO PCO1 BRUCEHILL TARBERT PA29 6TG Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 1 0 0 0 0 72 01880820256 PCO PCO1 BARMORE ROAD TARBERT PA29 6TW Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 0 0 0 0 0 73 01880820519 ADJACENT BUS SHELTER PCO1 BARMORE ROAD TARBERT PA29 6TW Argyll and Bute 14/05/2025 12/08/2025 4 4 4 4 Y 1 0 0 0 0 1 1951200324 Scalsaig Harbour, Isle of Colonsay PA61 7YW Argyll and Bute 27/05/2025 27/08/2025 Page 174
Page 175
Appendix 2 Sandbank Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 SANDHAVEN SANDBANK DUNOON PA23 8QW Callbox ID: 01369703190 - PCO1 ROBERTSON TERRACE SANDBANK DUNOON PA23 8PT Callbox ID: 01369704431 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Ardrishaig Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt Page 175
Page 176
BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 CHALMERS STREET ARDRISHAIG LOCHGILPHEAD PA30 8DX Callbox ID: 01546602278 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Bute Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - NEAR ASCOG CHURCH PCO1 ASCOG ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9EU Callbox ID: 01700504091 - CORNER OF ESPLANADE PCO1 ARGYLE STREET ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0AT Callbox ID: 01700504103 - PCO PCO1 ARGYLE PLACE ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0BA Callbox ID: 01700504155 - PCO PCO1 HIGH STREET ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9AR Callbox ID: 01700504302 Page 176
Page 177
- PCO PCO1 SHORE ROAD PORT BANNATYNE ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0LQ Callbox ID: 01700504329 - JCT GROSVENOR ROAD AT OLD CRAIGMORE PIER PCO1 MOUNTSTUART ROAD ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9LD Callbox ID: 01700504474 - PCO PCO1 ARDBEG ROAD ROTHESAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 0NL Callbox ID: 01700504481 - PCO PCO1 FIRST FLOOR KILCHATTAN BAY ISLE OF BUTE PA20 9NL Callbox ID: 01700831233 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Campbeltown Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - BURNBANK PLACE OUTSIDE 20 LONGROW PCO1 BURNBANK STREET CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6JD Callbox ID: 01586551143 - PCO JUNCTION RANGE ROAD PCO1 RALSTON ROAD CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6LF Callbox ID: 01586552733 - PCO O/S 103 JCT HILLSIDE RD PCO1 MILLKNOWE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6NJ Callbox ID: 01586554815 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Page 177
Page 178
Coll Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - FRONT OF STONE SHED PCO1 UP FROM MIDDLE PIER ISLE OF COLL PA78 6TB Callbox ID: 01879230360 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Cove and Kilcreggan Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). Page 178
Page 179
If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 FAIRFIELD GARDENS KILCREGGAN HELENSBURGH G84 0HS Callbox ID: 01436842225 - ADJ TO POST OFFICE PCO1 SHORE ROAD COVE HELENSBURGH G84 0LR Callbox ID: 01436842294 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Dunadd Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - OPP. HOTEL PCO1 KILMARTIN LOCHGILPHEAD PA31 8RQ Callbox ID: 01546510220 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Page 179
Page 180
Dunbeg Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - O/S POST OFFICE PCO1 JANE ROAD DUNBEG OBAN PA37 1QE Callbox ID: 01631562577 - PCO PCO1 LOCHNELL ROAD DUNBEG OBAN PA37 1QJ Callbox ID: 01631564851 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer East Kintyre Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not Page 180
Page 181
be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - OPP KILORAN HOUSE OPP THE MANSE PCO1 CARRADALE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QG Callbox ID: 01583431230 - PCO OPP CAR PARK PCO1 PENINVER CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QP Callbox ID: 01586552035 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Garelochhead Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - ADJ TO SUB POST OFFICE PCO1 THE FAIRWAY GARELOCHHEAD HELENSBURGH G84 0BA Callbox ID: 01436810272 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Page 181
Page 182
Gigha Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 ISLE OF GIGHA PA41 7AA Callbox ID: 01583505231 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Helensburgh Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on Page 182
Page 183
your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO 1 COLLINS ROAD HELENSBURGH G84 7UA Callbox ID: 01436673233 - O/S NAVAL PROVOST HQ PCO1 CHURCHILL SQUARE HELENSBURGH G84 9HL Callbox ID: 01436673886 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Islay Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO JCT SCHOOL STREET PCO1 MAIN STREET BOWMORE ISLE OF ISLAY PA43 7JH Callbox ID: 01496810200 - PCO JCT BEECH AVENUE PCO1 ELDER CRESCENT BOWMORE ISLE OF ISLAY PA43 7HU Callbox ID: 01496810272 - PCO PCO1 STANALANE BOWMORE ISLE OF ISLAY PA43 7LA Callbox ID: 01496810426 - PCO OPP PORT ASKAIG HOTEL & PO PCO1 PORT ASKAIG ISLE OF ISLAY PA46 7RB Callbox ID: 01496840287 - PCO JUNCTION A846 PCO1 LAOIGAN PLACE KEILLS ISLE OF ISLAY PA46 7RQ 01496840635 - A847 OPP PUBLIC TOILETS AT PIER ENTRANCE PCO1 BRUICHLADDICH ISLE OF ISLAY PA49 7UN Callbox ID: 01496850300 Page 183
Page 184
- PCO JUNCTION MAIN STREET PCO1 SCHOOL STREET PORT CHARLOTTE ISLE OF ISLAY PA48 7TW Callbox ID: 01496850301 - PCO OPP 7 PCO1 CAMPBELL PLACE PORTNAHAVEN ISLE OF ISLAY PA47 7SQ Callbox ID: 01496860225 - PCO PCO1 MAIN STREET PORT WEMYSS ISLE OF ISLAY PA47 7SR Callbox ID: 01496860245 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Jura Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 LAGG ISLE OF JURA PA60 7XQ Callbox ID: 01496820209 - NEW TERMINAL/FEOLIN FERRY PCO2 PCO2 CRAIGHOUSE ISLE OF JURA PA60 7XX Callbox ID: 01496820211 - ARDFIN PCO1 PCO1 CRAIGHOUSE ISLE OF JURA PA60 7XX Callbox ID: 01496820232 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Page 184
Page 185
Kilninver & Kilmelford Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 AT SUB POST OFFICE ARDUAINE OBAN PA34 4XQ Callbox ID: 01852200282 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Lismore Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on Page 185
Page 186
your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PORT RAMSAY PCO1 LISMORE OBAN PA34 5UN Callbox ID: 01631760255 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Kilmun Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th d May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 SUB POST OFFICE KILMUN DUNOON PA23 8SB Callbox ID: 01369840297 (This box is both Listed and within the LLT Planning Area) Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Strachur Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone Page 186
Page 187
boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - GLENBRANTER/STRACHUR PCO1 STRACHUR CAIRNDOW PA27 8DJ Callbox ID: 01369860211 - O/S TEL EXCH PCO1 STRACHUR CAIRNDOW PA27 8DG Callbox ID: 01369860220 - PCO PCO1 STRATHLACHLAN CAIRNDOW PA27 8DB Callbox ID: 01369860234 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Luing Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: Page 187
Page 188
- PCO PCO1 CULLIPOOL SUB POST OFFICE CULLIPOOL OBAN PA34 4TX Callbox ID: 01852314229 - ADJ WAITING ROOM /FERRY SLIP PCO1 CULLIPOOL SUB POST OFFICE CULLIPOOL OBAN PA34 4TX Callbox ID: 01852314236 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Mull Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 POST OFFICE SALEN ISLE OF MULL PA72 6JD Callbox ID: 01680300320 - PCO PCO1 AROS ISLE OF MULL PA72 6JP Callbox ID: 01680300339 - PCO INFORMATION OFFICE THE PIER HEAD CRAIGNURE ISLE OF MULL PA65 6AY Callbox ID: 01680812498 - PCO PCO1 CROGGAN ISLE OF MULL PA63 6AH Callbox ID: 01680814226 - PCO PCO1 ROCKFIELD ROAD TOBERMORY ISLE OF MULL PA75 6PN Callbox ID: 01688302312 - PCO PCO1 CREAGAN PARK ERRAY ROAD TOBERMORY ISLE OF MULL PA75 6PT Callbox ID: 01688302337 - PCO PCO1 ALBERT STREET TOBERMORY ISLE OF MULL PA75 6PJ Callbox ID: 01688302385 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Page 188
Page 189
North Knapdale Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - BELLANOCH S.P.O. GARAGE BELLANOCH LOCHGILPHEAD PA31 8SN Callbox ID: 01546830210 - PCO AT COFFEE SHOP CRINAN BASIN PCO1 CRINAN LOCHGILPHEAD PA31 8SW Callbox ID: 01546830231 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Oban Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should Page 189
Page 190
also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO1 LONGSDALE ROAD OBAN PA34 5JU Callbox ID: 01631562509 - PCO PCO1 KNIPOCH PLACE OBAN PA34 4ED Callbox ID: 01631562977 - PCO PCO1 CORRAN ESPLANADE OBAN PA34 5AQ Callbox ID: 01631563282 - PCO PCO1 MCCAIG ROAD OBAN PA34 4YD Callbox ID: 01631563644 - ENTRANCE TO MILLPARK PCO1 MILLPARK TERRACE SOROBA ROAD OBAN PA34 4JH Callbox ID: 01631565360 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Tarbert & Skipness Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - COUR MARCH COTTAGE CARRADALE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QL Callbox ID: 01880760221 - PCO PCO1 AT SUB POST OFFICE SKIPNESS TARBERT PA29 6XT Callbox ID: 01880760229 - CLAONAIG FERRY TERMINAL PCO1 SKIPNESS TARBERT PA29 6YG Callbox ID: 01880760257 Page 190
Page 191
- PCO PCO1 COASTGUARD OFFICE HARBOUR STREET TARBERT PA29 6UD Callbox ID: 01880820025 - PCO PCO1 BRUCEHILL TARBERT PA29 6TG Callbox ID: 01880820221 - PCO PCO1 BARMORE ROAD TARBERT PA29 6TW Callbox ID: 01880820256 - ADJACENT BUS SHELTER PCO1 BARMORE ROAD TARBERT PA29 6TW Callbox ID: 01880820519 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Taynuilt Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO PCO IN CAR PARK INVERAWE FISHERIES INVERAWE TAYNUILT PA35 1HU Callbox ID: 01866822596 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer The Laggan Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back Page 191
Page 192
to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: - PCO NEAR 1 BURNBANK COTTAGES PCO1 DRUMLEMBLE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6PW Callbox ID: 01586810284 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer West Kintyre Community Council Hello, we hope this email finds you well. We hate to burden you; however, this is a very time sensitive issue as we need to get this in front of committee before the summer recess. I request that you get a response back to iain.macinnes@argyll-bute.gov.uk by the end of this week Sunday 25th May. We are writing to pass on important information regarding the disconnection of public telephone boxes within your area (specific boxes are listed at the end of the email). BT has confirmed that 73 Public payphones across Argyll and Bute are no longer needed. These payphones should have a notice of this posted in them. Communities that wish to adopt a decommissioned red box can do so at the cost of £1. So far, these boxes have been reinvented as Cafes, mini-libraries and even defibrillator sites. The more modern glass kiosks can also be adopted. More information on adoption can be found here: bt.com/adopt BT also state that representations can be made to them until the 12th of August 2025. They will take account of representations made about their plans when making their final decision. They should also write back with the reasons for their decision (These will also be published on: www.bt.com/payphones/service). If one of the boxes on your list is highlighted in red, this means that it is Listed, and the kiosk will not be removed. The telephony equipment will be removed, and the kiosk will be locked. Some boxes on your list may be highlighted in blue. This means it is within Loch Lomond and the Trossachs planning area, and they will need to be liaised with regarding these boxes. Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, objections or representations and we will be happy to work with you in any way we can. The boxes in your area are as follows: Page 192
Page 193
- PCO OS 7 MUASDALE COTTAGES PCO1 MUASDALE TARBERT PA29 6XD Callbox ID: 01583421257 - PCO OPP TAYINLOAN VILLAGE HALL PCO1 TAYINLOAN TARBERT PA29 6XG Callbox ID: 01583441220 - FERRY TERMINAL NEAR PUBLIC TOILETS PCO1 FERRY ROAD TAYINLOAN TARBERT PA29 6XQ Callbox ID: 01583441296 - AT DRUMALEA FARM COTTAGES PCO1 KILKENZIE CAMPBELTOWN PA28 6QD Callbox ID: 01586820200 Kind regards, Iain MacInnes - Strategic Transportation Policy Officer Luke Horner - Digital Project Support Officer Page 193
Page 194
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 195
1 Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (18.06.25) UPDATE ON RECENT KILMICHAEL GLASSARY PARISH CHURCH APPEAL DECISION _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 23/01367/PP DPEA REFERENCE: PPA-130-2091 CASE DETAIL: Application for planning permission ref 23/01367/PP (Change of use of former church to form dwellinghouse, formation of vehicular access and driveway, erection of garage/carport, formation of opening in boundary wall to provide pedestrian access and associated works) refused by notice dated 21 August 2024 SITE ADDRESS: Kilmichael Glassary Parish Church, Kilmichael Glassary APPLICANT: Mrs Helen Tomolillo STATUS: Appeal Allowed by decision dated 10 March 2025 _________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report summarises a recent decision by Scottish Ministers following the above application being appealed. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. 3. BACKGROUND – 23/01367/PP 3.1 This report refers to planning application reference 23/01367/PP for the change of use of former church to form dwellinghouse, formation of vehicular access and driveway, erection of garage/carport, formation of opening in boundary wall to provide pedestrian access and associated works. 3.2 Planning permission was refused at Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee on the 21st August 2024 due a number of reasons including the unacceptable adverse impact the proposal would have on the setting of the listed building; the incompatibility of the proposal with the graveyard with resultant harm to the amenity of future residents and users of the graveyard; and the absence of any archaeological evaluation works prior to the determination of the planning application leading to significant uncertainty regarding the effect of the proposal in archaeological terms. The proposal was identified to be in conflict with LDP2 policies 01, 05, 08, 14, 21 and 66c) and NPF4 policies 7(o) and 14c). 3.3 An appeal was subsequently submitted to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (PEAD). Page 195 Agenda Item 9a
Page 196
2 Classification: OFFICIAL 4. REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS 4.1 A Reporter, appointed by Scottish Ministers, allowed the appeal and concluded that the planning permission should be granted subject to 16 conditions. 4.2 In summary the key points are as follows: • Incompatibility of the proposal with the graveyard – the Reporter accepted that the graveyard is and will continue to be visited by the public. The decision notes that given the proposed amenity space, future residents would have no reason to use the graveyard for any recreation purposes and the Council own and thus have control over the land (a condition was also imposed to maintain public access to the graveyard). Albeit relatively quiet, the Reporter notes everyday activities and noise in the vicinity are apparent when in the graveyard and considers that the movements of residents are unlikely to cause any material disturbance or disruption to those buried in the graveyard or to those visiting. The decision notes that the windows would have lead glazing, and occupiers are unlikely to be at the property all day and visitors are unlikely to visit the graveyard at night, and that the appellant accepts members of the public could be in close proximity to their home at any time and it should be anticipated by any future residents. Overall, the Reporter accepts that the context of the graveyard would alter, but it would not be so great as to indicate that the uses are incompatible. Further on in the decision, the Reporter notes that it would be open to the council to ensure that the occupier is made aware of any burial so they could vacate the property should they choose to do so. • Setting of the listed building – The Reporter in summary states: “When viewing the church and entering the graveyard there would be no obvious signs that the use had changed. Visitors would still understand the building, its purpose, and its relationship with the graveyard. In my view there would be little change, if any at all, to the setting or the sense of place. As for the change of use, for the reasons set out above, I do not consider that it would significantly alter the relationship between the church and the graveyard. Accordingly subject to a landscaping condition, there would be no adverse impact on the setting of either the church or the wall.” • Archaeological matters – A Written Scheme of Investigation was submitted at appeal stage. The Reporter was satisfied that the processes set out in the written scheme of investigation would ensure that any remains are dealt with properly and respectfully and that this was a matter that can be dealt with by a suitably worded condition. 4.3 Full details of the appeal documents and decision can be viewed on the PEAD website under the reference PPA-130-2091: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details 5. IMPLICATIONS Policy: None. Financial: None. Legal: None HR: None Fairer Scotland Duty: None Page 196
Page 197
3 Classification: OFFICIAL Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None Socio-economic Duty: None Islands: None Climate Change: None Risk: None Customer Service: None The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): None Author: Bryn Bowker Date: 05.06.25 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 197
Page 198
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 199
4 Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE (18.06.25) UPDATE ON RECENT ROWAN ROAD APPEAL DECISION _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 22/01986/PPP DPEA REFERENCE: PPA-130-2092 CASE DETAIL: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse SITE ADDRESS: Land North of Lynburn, Rowan Road, Oban APPLICANT: Beaton And McMurchy Architects Ltd STATUS: Appeal Allowed by decision dated 23 April 2025 _________________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This report summarises a recent decision by Scottish Ministers following the above application being appealed. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. 3. BACKGROUND – 22/01986/PPP 3.1 This report refers to planning application reference 22/01986/PPP for planning permission in principle for the site for the erection of a dwellinghouse. 3.2 Planning permission in principle was granted at Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee on the 18th September 2024 subject to the nine conditions listed at the end of the decision notice. 3.3 An appeal was subsequently submitted to the Planning Environmental Appeals Division (PEAD). The appellant sought revisions to certain parts of Condition 4 of the permission, relating to the Vehicular Access, Parking and Turning. 4. REPORTER’S CONCLUSIONS 4.1 A Reporter, appointed by Scottish Ministers, allowed the appeal, in part, and concluded that the planning permission in principle should be granted subject to nine conditions. 4.2 In summary the key points are as follows: Page 199 Agenda Item 9b
Page 200
5 Classification: OFFICIAL • Footway – the Reporter noted that there are currently no footways along Rowan Road and noted that the Council’s roads guidance does not state that footway provision on a private access is a necessity for new development; it does however indicate that where there are no footways then verges must be of sufficient quality to provide good, safe step offs. The Reporter agreed that the proposal would increase the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians. The Reporter observed that there are locations where the verges and width of the private access are adequate and some points where there is no immediate refuge but pedestrians would not have far to walk to reach one, and that drivers using the access would likely be proceeding with caution given the characteristics of the access. The Reporter concluded that is neither necessary nor reasonable to require a footway along the full length of the access as required by the approved condition however it was agreed that it would be reasonable that improved access for pedestrians is provided and amended the terms of Condition 4 to reflect this. • Carriageway width – the Condition requires that the private access shall have a minimum carriageway width of 3 metres. The appellant sought the deletion of this condition however was willing to accept localised widening. The Reporter advises that the road guidelines normally require carriageway widths of no less than 3.5 metres. The existing access is predominantly of single carriageway width with only limited locations where vehicles can safely pass each other without having to pull into the curtilage of residential properties. The Reporter amends the terms of Condition 4 to revise the requirements in relation to localised widening and pedestrian provision. • Passing places – the Reporter considered it reasonable for the terms of Condition 4 to be amended to vary the requirements in relation to the number, location and specification of the passing places. • Turning head and bin store – the Condition requires the provision of a turning head and bin store where the private road forks in two. The appellant considered that this part of the Condition should be deleted as the existing access arrangements allow for the turning of large refuse collection vehicles. The Reporter considered that the requirement for a turning facility is both necessary and reasonable and did not therefore delete this requirement from Condition 4. The Reporter concluded that it is not necessary or reasonable that additional bin storage facilities be provided outwith the plot and therefore amended the terms of Condition 4 to delete this requirement. • Street lighting and ducting – the Condition requires street lighting ducting be installed from the junction with the public road to the junction of the two spurs on the private road. The appellant is content to install ducting where pavement is to be installed. The roads guidance does not require the installation of street lighting on a private access, however the installation of lighting ducting may be required to allow for future upgrades. The Reporter concludes that this private access is not capable of being brought up to adoptable standards and the lack of street lighting is similar to the circumstances on many rural roads and therefore considered it to be unreasonable and unnecessary to require the installation of lighting ducting, with this part of Condition 4 therefore deleted. • Implementation of road improvement works - the approved Condition requires that all of the improvement works required by Condition 4 are fully completed prior to the Page 200
Page 201
6 Classification: OFFICIAL commencement of construction of the dwelling. The Reporter advises that it is normal for works which would be at risk of damage from construction traffic to be initially completed to base course level and then completed to wearing course level prior to the occupation of the development. The Reporter has altered the wording of the Condition to reflect this. • Junction improvements – the Reporter is satisfied that the appellant’s drawings suitably reflect the terms of the roads guidance and that in terms of the upgrading of the junction there is no conflict with the Council’s specification drawing. Consequently, the Reporter does not alter the terms of either Condition 2 or 4 to address these matters. • Parking and turning provision – the Reporter is satisfied that both parties understand that the requirements of the Condition relate to the parking and turning area within the plot and therefore the terms of the Condition are not amended. • Ownership – the Reporter notes the comments made in representations regarding ownership of the land required to implement the access improvement works. The Reporter confirms that the Council was satisfied that the appellant has sufficient control over the land such that a planning obligation or an agreement under Section 75 of the Act was not necessary. The appellant has submitted documentation at the appeal stage showing that he has control over the land required. Irrespective of that, the terms of the road improvement conditions are suspensive, therefore they prohibit work on the development until certain road improvements are carried out and require the completion of the works before the dwelling can be occupied. • Other conditions – the Reporter gave consideration to the other conditions as approved by the Council and was content that they meet the six tests set out in the circular. 4.3 Full details of the appeal documents and decision can be viewed on the PEAD website under the reference PPA-130-2092: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details . 5. 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 Risk: None Customer Service: None The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): None Author: Emma Shaw Date: 04.06.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 201
Page 202
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 203
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 203 Agenda Item 9c
Page 204
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 204
Page 205
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 Page 205
Page 206
This page is intentionally left blank