Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 21 May 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 21 May 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 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 14 May 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 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 23 April 2025 at 11.00 am (Pages 3 - 8) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 23 April 2025 at 2.30 pm (Pages 9 - 10) 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) (Pages 11 - 26) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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) (Pages 27 - 58) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
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) (Pages 59 - 66) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ4 2024/2025 (Pages 67 - 78) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORT FOR NOTING 8. PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE (Pages 79 - 84) Report by Executive Director with responsibility of Legal and Regulatory Support Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 23 APRIL 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader Steven Gove, Planning Officer Kim de Buiteléir, Design and Conservation Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest, Andrew Kain, Liz McCabe and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Peter Wallace declared a non-financial interest in planning application reference 24/01459/PP as he had dealt with the Applicant in respect of this proposal. He left the meeting and took no part in the determination of this application which was dealt with at item 4 of the Minute. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 March 2025 was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 9 April 2025 was approved as a correct record. Having declared an interest in the following item, Councillor Peter Wallace left the meeting at this point. 4. MS ERIN MURPHY: ERECTION OF A FENCE AND USE OF LAND AS THE CURTILAGE OF A SHOP UNIT: LAND TO THE REAR OF 19 EAST PRINCES STREET, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE (REF: 24/01459/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The application site consists of a ground floor unit and is located to the rear of Duncan’s Halls, a category B Listed Building within the town centre part of the Rothesay Conservation Area. The ground floor unit has historically been a retail premises put planning permission and listed building consent were approved in late 2024 for its change of use into a wine bar and work has commenced on the conversion. The proposal has attracted 17 objections and 37 expressions of support. Planning Officers do not consider that the objections or expressions of support raise any complex or Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
technical issues that have not been addressed in the report of handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Motion To agree to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Amanda Hampsey. Amendment To agree to hold a pre-determination hearing and site visit in respect of this application. Moved by Councillor Jan Brown, seconded by Councillor Fiona Howard. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Brown Councillor Green Councillor Hardie Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Howard Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Irvine The Motion was carried by 5 votes to 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition for Planning Permission (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details Unless otherwise directed by any of the conditions below, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 8th August 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 Page 4
Page 5
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 Drawing No. 2207-001 A 16.09.2024 Site Block Plan Drawing No. 2207-002 A 16.09.2024 Site Plan Drawing No. 2207-005 C 19.09.2024 Detail of Fence Drawing No. 2207-007 A 09.08.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Details of Display of Goods Prior to the first use for the display of goods for sale of that part of the application site to the rear of the building, full details of the types of goods; their locations; the area of ground in square metres that they would occupy; and the means by which they are to be displayed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the display of goods for sale shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and no such details having been submitted. 3. Details of Outdoor Storage Prior to the first use for outdoor storage of that part of the application site to the rear of the building, full details of the types of items to be stored; their locations; the area of ground in square metres that they would occupy; and the means by which they are to be stored shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the outdoor storage of items shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and no such details having been submitted. 4. Restriction on Use of Land The use of that part of the application site to the rear of the building for the consumption of food and drink on a commercial basis under Class 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1998 (as amended) shall not be permitted. Reason: In the interests of protecting the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the residential flats in the vicinity of the site and for the avoidance of doubt. 5. Restriction on Access for Customers Page 5
Page 6
Access by customers for the purposes of viewing or purchasing goods that are displayed on that part of the application site to the rear of the building shall not be permitted through the alleyways identified as ‘21’ and ‘23’ on Drawing No. 2207-005 Rev C ‘Site Plan’. Reason: In the interests of protecting the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the residential flats in the vicinity of the site and for the avoidance of doubt. 6. Restriction on Use of Land After 10 p.m. The use of that part of the application site to the rear of the building for the purpose of staff rest breaks shall not be permitted after 10.00 p.m. in the evening. Reason: In the interests of protecting the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the residential flats in the vicinity of the site and for the avoidance of doubt. 7. External Lighting Prior to their installation on the building or land contained in the application site, full details of all external lighting to be used (which should be designed in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Light Energy Consumption” 2007, Annexes A and B) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light and it shall be demonstrated that the lights will be positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, all external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of protecting the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the residential flats in the vicinity of the site and no such details having been submitted. 8. Land Drainage Works Prior to the commencement of any land drainage works, full details of the surface water drainage system for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the drainage system shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. 9. Vegetation Clearance, Tree Retention/Removal and Biodiversity Enhancement Prior to the commencement of any activities relative to the clearance of vegetation on the application site, a scheme for the implementation of these works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the following: Page 6
Page 7
i. A methodology for the survey of the vegetation and trees. This shall include details of the checking of trees with potential bat roost features and, where bats are identified as being present, the submission of appropriate mitigation measures. This shall also include details of the checking for the presence of any nesting birds and, where these are identified as being present, the submission of appropriate mitigation measures. ii. Details of the means of removal of any Invasive Non Native Species that are found on the site. iii. Details of any trees to be removed and the location and canopy spread of trees to be retained as part of the development. iv. A programme of measures for the protection of the retained trees during the carrying out of works within the site that shall be in accordance with BS 5837:2012 “Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction”. The tree protection measures shall be implemented for the full duration of 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. v. A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity and to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 4 April 2025. Submitted) Councillor Paul Kennedy left the meeting at 11.30 am during consideration of the foregoing item and before the vote was taken. Councillor Peter Wallace returned to the meeting at the conclusion of the foregoing item. 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME ANNUAL UPDATE - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3 There is a statutory requirement to replace Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) in no more than five years and this means preparing Local Development Plan 3 (LDP3) by March 2029. The revised Development Plan Scheme sets out the timetable and consultation process for LDP3 and is required to be updated annually. Page 7
Page 8
A report presenting the first annual update of the Development Plan Scheme for approval along with its associated Participation Statement was considered. Decision The Committee agreed to note the contents of the report and approve the Development Plan Scheme attached in Appendix A to the report for publication and submission to Scottish Ministers. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 23 April 2025 and Development Plan Scheme 2025, submitted) The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 6. EMERGENCY TREE PRESERVATION ORDER Consideration was given to a request for a Tree Preservation Order. Decision The Committee agreed the recommendations in the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 23 April 2025, submitted) Page 8
Page 9
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 23 APRIL 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, 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: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (R CHOW, ARDEN) The Governance Manager advised the Committee that there was no longer a requirement to hold this hearing as written notification had been received from the Applicant advising that they wished to withdraw their application for a Taxi Car Licence. Page 9 Agenda Item 3b
Page 10
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 11
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: 23/01938/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Mr And Mrs A Kain Proposal: Alterations to dwellinghouse, erection of extensions and installation of dormer window Site Address: Fairways Lodge, Erray Road, Tobermory, Isle of Mull, PA75 6PS 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 extensions • Installation of dormer window (ii) Other specified operations • Internal alterations to reduce number of bed and breakfast rooms (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Area Roads Authority Report dated 21.11.2023 advising of no objections to the application. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation responses are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: 23/00405/PP Page 11 Agenda Item 4
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL Alterations to dwellinghouse, erection of extensions and installation of dormer window Withdrawn on 11.10.2023 13/00035/PP Erection of extension to dwellinghouse Granted on 05.03.2013 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 14.12.2023. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: No representations received. 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: • 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 ☐Yes ☒No ☐Yes ☒No The application was submitted prior to the adoption of LDP2 and given that the proposal represents small scale extensions to an existing dwellinghouse, it is not Page 12
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL considered that there is a requirement for the Sustainability Checklists which would not add anything to the planning process. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport 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 Page 13
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity (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. • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) (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: • N/A (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 Page 14
Page 15
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? ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning permission is sought for the erection of ground floor extensions, the installation of a dormer window, alterations to fenestration, and internal alterations at the site of Fairways Lodge, Erray Road, Tobermory, Isle of Mull. In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDP2, the site is identified as being within the defined Settlement Area of Tobermory on the proposals maps where LDP2 Policy 01 states that development will normally be acceptable subject to a number of criteria. There would be no alterations to the existing access which serves the site and no alterations to the existing servicing and infrastructure provision. The property is currently used to provide Bed and Breakfast accommodation at a level incidental to the lawful use of the dwellinghouse. The plans submitted with the application indicate that as a result of the proposed extensions and associated internal alterations, the dwelling would have four bedrooms. The agent has confirmed that two bedrooms would be used for incidental Bed and Breakfast accommodation which does not, in itself, require planning permission. There is no proposed change of use of the dwellinghouse. Page 15
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL The main considerations relate to whether or not the proposed extensions and alterations are of an appropriate scale, design and finish which would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of scale, massing, design and finishing materials and whether the proposal is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy. This would ordinarily be a simple decision delegated to the Head of Planning and Economic Growth (and administered by the Area Team Leader for the Oban, Lorn and The Isles planning team) but requires the consideration of Members in this case as the applicant is an elected Councillor. (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 National Planning Framework 4 and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 29.04.2025 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 30.04.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 16
Page 17
Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/01938/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 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). 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. Page 17
Page 18
Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 23/01938/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of ground floor extensions, the installation of a dormer window, alterations to fenestration, and internal alterations. 2. Settlement Strategy 2.1. In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDP2, the site is identified as being within the defined Settlement Area of Tobermory on the proposals maps where LDP2 Policy 01 states that development will normally be acceptable subject to compliance with a number of criteria. The main criteria within Policy 01 which are applicable to the proposal the subject of the current application are: • It is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively; providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development; and • It is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; and • Respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and • It complies with all relevant Local Development Plan 2 policies. In order to address the determining issues, the key considerations in this application are: 2.1.1. Compliance with the Development Plan and other relevant planning policy 2.1.2. Any other material considerations. 3. Proposal 3.1. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for the erection of ground floor extensions, the installation of a dormer window, alterations to fenestration, and internal alterations. Fairways Lodge is predominantly a single storey property with an ‘L’ shaped footprint occupying a spacious plot towards the northeast edge of the settlement of Tobermory. The site is adjacent to a golf course and there are a small number of large residential properties set within spacious plots to the south and east of the application site. Planning permission was granted in 2013 for extensions to the dwellinghouse, however it is apparent that this permission was not implemented. This application is seeking consent for alterations and extensions to the dwellinghouse in the form of ground floor extensions, the installation of a dormer window upon the southwest elevation, and alterations to fenestration. Page 18
Page 19
Classification: OFFICIAL The property is currently used to provide an incidental level of B&B accommodation. The plans submitted with the application indicate that as a result of the proposed extensions and associated internal alterations, the dwelling would have four bedrooms. The agent has confirmed that two bedrooms would be used for B&B accommodation. The property would therefore fall within Use Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended), where the property is a bed and breakfast establishment where at any one time not more than two bedrooms are used for that purpose. The proposed single storey extension upon the southeast elevation would provide additional living accommodation at the ground floor level. The extension would protrude from the southeast elevation and would occupy a footprint of approximately 11 square metres. The extension would have a shallow dual-pitched roof, perpendicular to the ridgeline of the main dwelling, set at a height of 4.3 metres. The proposed facing and roofing materials would comprise natural timber cladding and black corrugated steel sheeting and there would be glazing within the gable end and side elevations. This application also proposes a small infill extension at the ground floor level in the southern corner of the property. The proposed dormer would be sited upon the southwest roof slope of the existing dwellinghouse, and would replace two small existing pitched-roof dormer windows. The proposed single dormer would have a flat roof and would feature three windows, serving habitable accommodation within the roof space. The facing and roofing materials would comprise natural timber cladding and zinc cladding; an appropriate condition is required to ensure that the exact facing materials are appropriate to the host dwelling and its surroundings. The existing conservatory upon the southeast elevation would be altered to provide a flat roof, which would facilitate a balcony for the habitable accommodation within the roofspace. Above the conservatory, the existing windows within the roof space upon the southeast elevation would be amended to doors, providing access to the balcony, which would be contained by a glass balustrade. This application also proposes the addition of two rooflights within the northwest elevation roof slope. The siting, design and finishing materials of the proposed development are assessed against the relevant Development Plan Policies below. 4. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. 4.1. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or Page 19
Page 20
Classification: OFFICIAL against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. 4.2. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. 4.3. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity In the case of the development proposed by this application, it is considered that there are no issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority. NPF4 Policy 3(c) states that applications for individual householder development are excluded from the requirement to include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. The proposed development is therefore considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 3 as underpinned by Local Development Plan Policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 1. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The development proposed by the current planning application is considered appropriate in terms of its type, design and scale such that it would have no unacceptable impact on the natural environment. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a local landscape area or a site designated as a local nature conservation site or within an area identified as wild land. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 4 and does not conflict with any policies set out in LDP2. 4.5. NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Part (a) of Policy 9 states that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether Page 20
Page 21
Classification: OFFICIAL permanent or temporary, will be supported. In determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. The development proposed by this application is considered to be on a brownfield site by virtue of the fact that it is located within the established curtilage of the property. It is considered that the proposal will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land and is therefore supported by Policy 9(a) and Policy 01 of LDP2 which defines the site as being within the Settlement Area of Tobermory and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.6. NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The development the subject of this planning application seeks permission for alterations and extensions to the property of ‘Fairways Lodge’. There would be no alteration to the access or parking arrangements at the site, which comprise an existing private track situated off the UC06 Erray Road and an existing parking and turning area for five vehicles. This small scale development is not considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. The Area Roads Authority have been consulted on the application and have raised no objections to the proposed development. The proposed development is consistent with the aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 35, 37, 39 and 40 which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with the scale of the development proposed. 4.7. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. NPF4 Policy 14(a) details that development proposals should be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations, regardless of scale with Part (b) affording support to developments where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable and Adaptable. The proposed ground floor extensions and the alterations to the dwellinghouse would be modest in scale and would respect the character and design of the existing dwelling. The proposed use of natural timber cladding as the external finishing material would contrast appropriately with the white render facing material of the existing dwelling, providing the extension with a subservient appearance. The proposed dormer would respect the style, scale and form of the existing roof and dwelling design. The proposed dormer would be set significantly below the ridgeline of the dwelling and would not appear as an overly dominant feature within the roof plane. The windows within the dormer would relate to the shape, position, design and size of the existing windows within the dwellinghouse. The development would be well contained within the application site and would have no adverse impact upon the character or appearance of the wider setting. Page 21
Page 22
Classification: OFFICIAL Due to the siting of the dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties, the proposed development would not lead to any adverse impacts resulting from overlooking. As a result of the appropriate design of the proposed works and as the dwelling occupies a spacious plot, there would be no adverse impacts resulting from visual intrusion or shading. Neighbour amenity would therefore be suitably retained. The development the subject of this planning application is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and does not conflict with the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: all policies which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape making use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site, and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. 4.8. NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 16 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs. Policy 16(g) gives support to householder developments where they 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 where they do not have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties in terms of physical impact, overshadowing or overlooking. As detailed above, the proposed extensions and alterations are considered to represent an acceptable addition to the dwellinghouse which would not detract from the overall appearance of the dwellinghouse or its setting within the site or the wider landscape and, due to the siting of the dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties, would not give rise to any adverse neighbour amenity issues with regard to overlooking, shading or visual intrusion. The proposal is considered to accord with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 16(g) and does not conflict with the guidance set out in the sustainable siting and design principles set out in LDP2 Policies 04, 05, 08, 09 and 10. 5. Public Representation 5.1. No representations have been received to the application. 6. Conclusion 6.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are whether or not the proposed alterations and extensions are of an appropriate scale, design and finish which respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of scale, massing, design and finishing materials and whether it is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy. No objections have been received from consultees with regards to the access required to serve the proposed development. Page 22
Page 23
Classification: OFFICIAL The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy set out above and is deemed to be in compliance with their requirements. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Page 23
Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 25
" " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 23/01938/PP O 1:1,000 0 9.5 194.75 Meters Application Site Page 25
Page 26
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 27
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee 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: 24/01249/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Lorne Thomson Proposal: Change of use of land to vehicle parking/storage, including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part retrospective) Site Address: Land West Of BT Telephone Exchange, Garelochhead ____________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 2 (A) INTRODUCTION This application was approved subject to conditions at a Hearing of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 9th April 2025 following a recommendation for refusal. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to present the draft Conditions to Members for approval. ______________________________________________________________________ (B) UPDATE At the Hearing on 9th April 2025 the Committee agreed to grant planning permission 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 Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. Following this decision, the planning officers consulted with both Environmental Health and the Flood Advisors as they had not previously had the opportunity to provide recommendations on conditions. The responses were received from both consultees and placed in the public domain. A set of draft conditions was then prepared using the above comments and those previously received from the Council’s Biodiversity Officer, and the supporters including the Residents Association. The draft conditions were then sent as instructed to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee. The response was that it would be most appropriate to refer the matter back to PPSL in order that those who were in favour of the development going ahead can offer comment on the conditions suggested. The draft conditions are now presented in the Appendix for Members to consider. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION Page 27 Agenda Item 5
Page 28
Classification: OFFICIAL It is recommended that the conditions and reasons appended to this report are agreed. __________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 07.05.2025 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 08.05.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 28
Page 29
Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 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 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 and no individual car shall remain on the site for a continuous period of more than a year. A register of all cars 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. Page 29
Page 30
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 08/002B; and visibility splays of 42 x 2.4 x 1.05 metres measured from the edge of the carriageway. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material 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 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 Footway Prior to the development first being brought into use, a pedestrian footway connection of 2m width must be provided between the proposed car park and the existing footway alongside the B872. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety. 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. Page 30
Page 31
Classification: OFFICIAL Note to Applicant: Regard should be had to SEPA’s consultation comments in relation to the proposed development. 8. Flood mitigation Prior to the car storage area being brought into use, details of flood warning signs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority in consultation with the Council’s Flood Advisors. Thereafter the approved signs shall be erected on site within 3 months of being approved. Reason: to ensure that anyone using the site is aware of the risk of flooding and the potential damage to private property. 9. 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. Page 31
Page 32
Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 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. Page 32
Page 33
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee 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: 24/01249/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Lorne Thomson Proposal: Change of use of land to vehicle parking/storage, including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part retrospective) Site Address: Land West Of BT Telephone Exchange, Garelochhead ____________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 (A) INTRODUCTION This application is to be presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 22nd January 2025. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring the planning file up to date to include details of the late supporting representations submitted. ______________________________________________________________________ (B) REPRESENTATIONS Late Representations Following the completion of the Officer’s Report on 01.11.2024 a further 22 representations were lodged in support of the application: 1. Caroline Colquhoun, 4 West Daladhill Lane, Garelochhed, Helensburgh, G84 0BE, Received 18.11.2024 2. Cllr Maurice Corry, Received 13.11.2024 3. Iain Exley, 8 Malcolm Place, Helensburgh, G84 GHP, Received 15.11.2024 4. Liam Flanagan, 11 Upland Wynd, Garelochhead, G84 0BL, Received 13.11.2024 5. Denis Foster, Flat 3, Dalandhill East, Dalandhill Lane, Garelcohhead, G84 0BE, Received 11.11.2024 6. Sarah Gordon, Uisken, Feorlin Way, Garelochhead, G84 0DF, Received 11.11.2024 7. Robert Griffiths, Rannochbrae, Station Road, Garelochhead, G84 0BD, Received 18.11.2024 8. Justin Kimmett, Duntorquil, Portincaple, Helensburgh, G84 0CU, Received 15.11.2024 9. Gemma Kimmett, Duntorquil, Portincaple, Helensburgh, G84 0CU, Received 15.11.2024 10. William Mitchell, Willow Barn, Glen Fruin, Helensburgh, G84 8YT, Received 18.11.2024 11. Katie Morley, 214 West Princess Street, G84 8HA, Received 13.11.2024 Page 33
Page 34
Classification: OFFICIAL 12. Jason Pocock, Camsail Cottage, Rosneath, Helensburgh, G84 0QR, Received 13.11.2024 13. Julieann Powell, 14 Collins Road, Helensburgh, G84 7UA, Received 11.11.2024 14. Anthony Robson, 10 Townhead Road, Helensburgh, G84 7LX, Received 11.11.2024 15. Alice Samara, 1 /2 Stroul Lodge, Clynder, G84 0QA, Received 15.11.2024 16. Karen Shaw, 12 Tomamhoid, Rosneath, Helensurgh, G84 0RE, Received 15.11.2024 17. Susan Slade, Duntorquil, Feuins Road, Portincaple, Helensburgh G84 0EU, Received 18.11.2024 18. Kevin Small, 51 Malcolm Place, Helensburgh, G84 9HN, Received 13.11.2024 19. Kayla Smith, 214 West Princess Street, Helensburgh, GB4 8HA, Received 13.11.2024 20. Lewis Syme, Willow Bank, Rowmore Estate, Garelochhead, G84 0EH, Received 15.11.2024 21. Unknown, Mayfield, Old School Road, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AT, Received 13.11.2024 22. D West, 6 Strathfillan Terrace, Crianlarich, FK20 8QW, Received 12.11.2024 The matters raised in the further representations are summarised below: • The proposal will help alleviate local parking issues • The proposal will improve the condition of the site which is an eyesore • The proposed planting will help screen the site form the public road The expressions of support do not raise any new matters that have not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling before Members. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report which does not introduce any new information that has not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling. The recommendation of the Planning Authority remains that planning permission be Refused in line with the reasons appended to the original Report of Handling. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 09.01.2025 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 09.01.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 34
Page 35
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: 24/01249/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Lorne Thomson Proposal: Change of Use of Land to vehicle parking/storage, including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part-retrospective). Site Address: Land West Of BT Telephone Exchange, Garelochhead, Argyll & 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 • Change of use of land to form vehicle parking • Creation of access • Erection of boundary wall • Laying of hardcore (ii) Other specified operations • Landscaping (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: ABC Local Biodiversity Officer Date Consulted: 02.09.2024 Response Received: 10.10.2024 • The site extends to 0.19ha of historic woodland (now hard surface), with McCauley Burn to the south and east. The site had suitable habitat present for European Protected Species (EPS) and Protected Species (PS). Page 35
Page 36
Classification: OFFICIAL • The applicant states “It is acknowledged that in 2019 trees were removed from the application site. As noted above these trees were poor quality and self- seeded, and more importantly the site was being invaded by Japanese Knotweed.” • If the woodland had not been removed, I would have needed the following information from the applicant: a) European Protected Species, Protected Species (mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) surveys that would have need to be carried out prior to any works commencing. The trees may have had potential for roosting bats, red squirrels, pine marten, and breeding birds. b) Tree Survey to show the condition, species, age and conservation value of the trees within the site area. This would show if the trees were of poor quality and self-seeded. In accordance with NPF4 Policy 6, woodland removal is only supported under certain conditions. If would also be useful to see the discussions with Scottish Forestry of proposed tree felling advice to help clarify this. c) Method of Japanese Knotweed removal and its management plan. Invasive non-native species need set protocols to be followed for their clearance. Recommendations • Details of the location, species, and size of every tree/shrub they propose to plant. • A programme of tree/shrub planting to show timings, method of implementation, completion, and on-going maintenance and monitoring. • The agreed tree planting scheme should be completed within the first planting season (October – April). • A programme of the invasive non-native Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) clearance to show its location, and timings and method of removal. • Works to be carried out outwith the optimum time of spawning sea trout (October to January) to avoid impact on them. • The proposed site / landscape design shows improvements to the site as it stands now. There is still a lack of connectivity at the south part of the car park, and I would recommend the native woodland on either side be continued through to meet one another. • However, with regard the land as it was, prior to unauthorised tree feeling, the proposed site / landscape design does not follow NPF4 Policy 3 or Policy 6 guidance. ABC Development Policy Officer Date Consulted: 02.09.2024 Response Received: 11.10.2024 • The application site sits within an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA). The southern part of the OSPA was considered in the Examination stage of LDP2. The Reporter notes that “although not appearing to have significant informal recreational use, [it] nevertheless contributes significantly to the character and amenity of the village. The application site itself forms a small part of this. • Policy 81 of LDP2 sets out that “partial loss of such areas to development can unacceptably erode either their individual integrity and function or the integrity of our wider blue and green infrastructure”, and as such a robust justification is required. • In the assessment of this application careful consideration should be given to parts (a) and (e) of Policy 81. The application site is a minor part of the overall Page 36
Page 37
Classification: OFFICIAL OSPA however an assessment requires to be made in terms of whether the development would affect the integrity of the overall OSPA as well as the character and amenity value within the village. Whilst this part of the OSPA does not appear to provide a functional link through the wider OSPA due to the presence of a watercourse, prior to the recent removal of trees it contributed towards the integrity of the green infrastructure and associated amenity value. ABC Roads Authority Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 19.09.2024 No objection, subject to conditions regarding formation of access and drainage. Further clarification confirms that parking bays and turning/manoeuvring space is not required if site is to be used as private car storage (rather than publicly accessible car parking). All vehicles required to enter and exit site in forward gear. Ministry of Defence Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 27.09.2024 No objection SEPA Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 29.08.2024 Below threshold for comment, advised to refer to consultation standards Environmental Health Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 - No Response Flood Risk Consultants Date Consulted: 29.08.2024- No Response (D) HISTORY: Planning Enforcement 21/00049/ENOTH3 – Unauthorised Use of Land for the storage of vehicles [Open] Planning Application Adjacent site 20/01822/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse and public realm enhancements [Refused] – Application initially included this site within the red line boundary, but did not form part of the final submission. (E) PUBLICITY: Helensburgh Advertiser Date Published: 12.09.2024 Date of Expiry: 03.10.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 22 representations have been made in response to this application. 2 neutral representations and 20 representations in support of the application are made: Page 37
Page 38
Classification: OFFICIAL Neutral: 1. Nicholas Beevers, Buchanan Castle Golf Club, Buchanan Castle Estate, Drymen, G63 0HX 2. Sarah Borrows, Glenelg Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0AT Support 1. Emily Pullar, 4 Dalandhui Mews, Dalandhi Lane, Garelochhead, G84 0BE 2. Gordon Russell, Achnashie Cottage, Rosneath, G84 0QU 3. Mike Austin, Rosneath Helensburgh G84 0QR 4. Elizabeth Macintosh, 106E Sinclair Street, Helensburgh, G84 9QE 5. D Ross, 2 St Modans Howe, Garelochhead, G84 0DR 6. Amanda Kennedy, 8 Dunivard Place, G84 0AA 7. John Murrin, 105 Feorlon Way, Garelochhead G84 0EB 8. Stewart Dixon, 5 Greenfield Way, Garelochhead G84 0BN 9. Jamie Kjorstad, 1 Feorlinbreck, Garelochhead, G84 0DT 10. Gerard Quigley, 91 Feorlin Way, Garelochhead, G84 0DX 11. Claire Balneaves, 23 Redgauntlet Road, Helensburgh, G84 7TW 12. Steven Street, Tangaroa, Fairfield Gardens, Kilcreggan, G84 0HS 13. R Madden, 16 Almora Drive, Dumbarton, G82 1AE 14. Craig Wilson, 7 Machrie Drive, Helensburgh, G84 9EJ 15. Margaret Johnson, 14 Ferry Road, G84 16. Greig Dixon, 42 Linn Walk, Garelochhead, G84 0DS 17. Catherine Bennett, 2 Bruce Court, Succoth, Arrochar, G83 7BF 18. Mr &Mrs Cowan, The Haven East, Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0DR 19. Sandra Prout, 35 Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0AT 20. George Freeman, Garelochhead Residents Association (two letters of support submitted) 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: Page 38
Page 39
Classification: OFFICIAL Neutral • To consider the value of the burn as a spawning burn for sea trout. The burn is highly productive for sea trout • An invasive plant management plan is needed to ensure knotweed on the site is managed Officer Comment: This is noted. In consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer a number of species and habitat surveys would be required for development at this site and mitigation in relation to sea trout spawning season This is considered in the assessment below. • Reassurances are required that vehicles will not be washed here, that there is no storage of end of life vehicles or waste from the Applicant’s garage business. • The bank revetment done in 2020 was not initially done under CAR license and we do not know what material was pushed down behind the stone rep-rap which was installed Officer Comment: SEPA confirms that a CAR License was granted and there are no concerns for the work that was undertaken. A copy of the CAR License is also submitted with this application. The storage of end-of-life vehicles on site is not proposed as part of this application. Nonetheless, a planning condition could be applied to ensure environmental and residential amenity. • Any further surface laid on the area is fully permeable and does not increase the flood risk to several private properties downstream. • There can be considerable pressure on the Burn which can overspill its banks until the tide turns. Any increased run-off from the site might be problematic. Officer Comment: suitable materials and construction methods are also advised in the Applicant’s own flood survey report. Materials, drainage and water management could be secured by planning condition. • Can the Council amend the planning section so objections and letters of support be done via the website. Officer Comment: Applications are available for public viewing on the Council’s website, where representations can be made directly to the application. Support • The current land is vacant and derelict and an eyesore. The proposed design would be an improvement to the condition of the land. Officer Comment: The current condition of the land is the result of unauthorised development of a greenfield site by the Applicant. This application seeks to remedy the breach in planning control and proposed design and landscaping improvement. This is discussed further in the assessment below. • The car park is a great use of the derelict land Page 39
Page 40
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comment: Prior to the unauthorised development this land was not derelict or vacant, but a wooded space forming part of the community’s Open Space Protection Area • The erection of a retaining wall would make the area more attractive and give a better first impression to the village. Officer Comment: The proposed design and siting of this application is considered in the assessment below. • Planting woodland to screen the site will only enhance the look of the village and encourage more wildlife Officer Comment: The application proposes some landscaping and planting in a bid to mitigate the harm to biodiversity following the unauthorised development of this greenfield site. This matter is discussed further in the report below. • The proposed car parking will benefit the community as it will help alleviate parking issues in the village- particularly on the residential streets surrounding the car garage. • It would be hard to make a case against extra parking in the village. Officer Comment: The proposed development is to create/ regularise the private vehicle storage yard for use by the Applicant in association with his garage business. There is no public access or parking proposed. The site has been actively used since 2021 and parking issues associated with the Applicant’s business operations have persisted. In the event this application was approved, there is no planning mechanism to ensure the Applicant does not store vehicles associated with his business on the public road. This matter is discussed further in the report below. • The garage is a vital part of the community, offering jobs and vital car repairs. • This application is from the largest employer in the community and this application is required to support growth of this important business. Officer Comment: This matter is assessed alongside NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development) in the body of the report. • The application site is part of the OSPA that has long been degraded. This site represents only 10/12% of the overall OSPA. Officer Comment: The harm to the OSPA designation and significant conflict with the Local Development Plan is outlined in the report below. The existing ‘degradation’ of the site is a result of the unauthorised development of the site by the Applicant. This retrospective application seeks to formalise this development, with proposed landscaping and boundary treatment. Page 40
Page 41
Classification: OFFICIAL • Although a number of trees were removed, these were of poor quality and self- seeded. The site was also contaminated by Japanese Knotweed. Officer Comment: This matter is considered in the report below. • This site is not considered important to birds and wildlife within the village. Officer Comment: Biodiversity implications are considered in the report. • Garelochhead Residents Association are amazed and disappointed that Planning Officers are likely to recommend refusal, partly because the application site is part of an Open Space Protection Area. • There are a large number of representations supporting this application. There have been no representations from the community objecting to this application Officer Comment: The recommended reasons for refusal are set out in the report. Whilst the proposal is subject to public support, the matters raised are not considered sufficient justification to merit a departure from the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan. In light of the public support for the proposal contrary to officer recommendation, the application has been referred to the Planning, Protective Services, and Licensing Committee (PPSL) for determination. • A site visit by the PPSL Committee is requested. Officer Comment: This application is not considered to be of sufficient complexity or novel issue to merit a site visit by Members. Nonetheless, the decision to complete a site visit prior to the determination of this application remains with Members. (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) A Sustainability Checklist ☒Yes ☐No Page 41
Page 42
Classification: OFFICIAL Flood Risk Assessment Report compiled by Gavia Environmental (28/03/2024). • Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) including hydraulic modelling for a proposed development. • According to the SEPA Flood Maps (SEPA 2021), there is high risk (1 in 10 year) of a fluvial flooding across most of the Site associated with McAuley Burn. Overall, the Site building is considered to be at high risk from fluvial flooding. • The Site is not at risk of surface water flooding within the Site boundary. There is an area of medium risk (1 in 200 year) of surface water flooding in association with the dip in the B782 road. Overall, the Site is considered to be at little or no risk from surface water flooding. • There is an indicative high risk (1 in 10 year) of coastal flooding along McAuley Burn. Lower risk events encroach into the Site, however, the majority remains free from flooding. Overall, the Site is considered to be at medium risk from coastal flooding. • The Site is considered to be at little or no risk from groundwater flooding. • There is no indication that hazard from infrastructural sources is present in the nearby area and assuming proposed drainage is designed to relevant standards, infrastructural flooding would typically pose little to no risk. • During the 1 in 200 year event there would be no inundation, outwith McAuley Burn banks, within the Site or roadway. Including climate change allowances, the maximum water level would reach 5.19m AOD and flow back into the roadway. (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 Page 42
Page 43
Classification: OFFICIAL (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry 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 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 81 – Open Space Protection Areas (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 Page 43
Page 44
Classification: OFFICIAL • Planning History • SEPA Flood Mapping • The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal • DPEA PPA-130-2090 (Planning Permission Appeal) (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 A number of representations of support have been received in response to the proposal. The recommended decision to refuse this application conflicts with the body of public support. However, this is a local application that conflicts with the development plan, and it is considered that the proposal does not raise complex or novel issues that require discussion by way of hearing. As such, it is considered unlikely that a pre-determination hearing would add significant value to the decision-making process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Open Space Protection Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: N/A Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☒Yes ☐No Page 44
Page 45
Classification: OFFICIAL See assessment below re removal of woodland and relevance to the proposed development. Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The Proposal This application seeks to regularise the existing unauthorised use of land as a vehicle storage yard. The proposed use is required to support the Applicant’s garage business located within the centre of Garelochhead. This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (case reference: 21/00049/ENOTH3). An application was not encouraged given the clear and significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. The Site This is a prominent site that sits at the junction with the B872 Whistlefield Road towards Portincaple to the North and the B833 to the Rosneath Peninsula to the south. The site is within the Bendarroch Park Open Space Protection Area which encompasses land to the north of the B833 and land to the south. The site has not been previously developed and is a greenfield site. Design & Siting The proposed low stone boundary and planting would improve the current condition of the land and help to lessen the existing visual harm of the vehicle storage yard in line with accepted design principles. However, the storage of vehicles at this prominent site in an incongruous use within the surrounding woodland and greenspace. The loss of the visual amenity afforded by the greenfield site is not considered to be outweighed by the proposed design improvements. There is therefore a conflict with Placemaking principles set out in the Local Development Plan. Biodiversity The site is bounded on two sides by the McAuley Burn. Native riparian edge woodland frames the southern bank of the Burn and, prior to its removal, connected with the native woodland of the proposed development site. Whilst trees have also been removed from the adjacent land, there still exists substantial woodland habitat Page 45
Page 46
Classification: OFFICIAL to support localised nature networks and those of the riparian corridor within and alongside the Burn. The proposed fragmentation of the OSPA and development of this site is likely to disrupt localised nature networks contrary to the Local Development Plan. However, there is the potential to secure compensatory planting and biodiversity enhancement plan by Condition to create and strengthen localised nature networks and to mitigate the impact of the development. Open Space Protection Area The development site is relatively modest in size and scale within the Settlement Area; however, the proposal comprises greenfield development within a designated Open Space Protection Area, without sufficiently meeting the exceptions set out within LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). The proposed greenfield development would constitute a loss of amenity open space, that would have an adverse impact upon biodiversity, and which fails to respect the landscape character of the area. It is considered that the built development and highly visible use of vehicle storage has a significant impact upon the amenity value of the site and the wider OSPA, contrary to the Local Development Plan. Economic Policy Other than the land being in the Applicant’s ownership there is no explanation or justification as to why the greenfield development of this site is required. Nor is it adequately explained how the existing garage site is insufficient to support the Applicant’s business operations, or how the additional storage space in this location would support the business. In turn, this application fails to demonstrate the requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development), contrary to the Local Development Plan. Conclusion Whilst the proposed improvements to the existing unauthorised development will enhance the condition of the site, there remains significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. Letters of support have been submitted from local residents encouraged by the proposed improvement of the condition of the site and the opportunity to alleviate parking concerns within the Settlement centre. However, the proposed greenfield development is to create a private vehicle storage yard for the use of the Applicant and presents no discernible wider public benefit to justify the departure from the Local Development Plan. The development site is within a designated Open Space Protection Area as set out in LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). The proposed development would contribute to the fragmentation of the OSPA and actively devalues the amenity value of the greenspace, and of the wider OSPA. The proposal does not give rise to wider economic benefit, and it has not been adequately demonstrated that this development accords with NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). The proposed development conflicts with the Local Development Plan, with no significant material considerations to justify this departure. For the reasons set out Page 46
Page 47
Classification: OFFICIAL in the proposed Reasons For Refusal (below), it is recommended that planning permission should be refused. A full report is provided in Appendix A. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be REFUSED: The proposal is considered to be in conflict 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 grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 01.11.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 01.11.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 47
Page 48
Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01249/PP 1. The proposed development presents significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings); LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas); Policy 04 (Sustainable Development); and Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas): a) The greenfield development is not allocated for this proposed use, contrary to NPF4 Policy 09. b) The proposed use on greenfield site is not compatible with the surrounding land use and designation as Open Space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 01. c) The proposed use does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land and would devalue the amenity open space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 04. d) The proposed development would lead to fragmentation of the OSPA to the detriment of visual amenity and character of the area and of the wider designation, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. 2. There is significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 26 (d) (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development): a) The site is not allocated for Business and Industry use, and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP, nor that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area contrary to NPF4 Policy 26 (d) and LDP2 Policy 22. b) It has not been adequately demonstrated that the development proposal meets the terms of LDP2 Policy 22 (b). Page 48
Page 49
Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01249/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. The Proposal 1.1 This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (case reference: 21/00049/ENOTH3). This application seeks to regularise the existing unauthorised use of land as a vehicle storage yard and the creation of an access and laying of hardstanding. This application also proposes the erection of a boundary wall and landscaping. The storage of vehicles is required to support the Applicant’s garage business located within the Garelochhead centre. 2. The Site 2.1 The site is located in the Settlement Area of Garelochhead at the junction of Whistlefield Road (B872) from the North and the B833 southbound towards the Rosneath Peninsula. The west and south of the site is edged by the McAuley Burn. The site is within the Bendarroch Park Open Space Protection Area which encompasses land to the north of the B833 and land to the south. The Applicant also owns an area of the OSPA designated land to the south of the site, although this is not included within a blue line boundary within the application. The site has not been previously developed and is a greenfield site. 3. Design & Siting 3.1 This is a prominent site that sits at the junction with the B872 Whistlefield Road towards Portincaple to the North and the B833 to the Rosneath Peninsula to the south. Previously the site contributed to the tree-lined entrance to the settlement centre from this direction, with woodland on either side of the B872 creating an attractive green buffer zone between residential properties to the west and Garelochhead centre to the east. Currently, the site is secured by the long-term use of Heras fencing with hard standing facilitating the informal storage of vehicles on site. 3.2 The proposed low stone boundary wall would provide a uniform boundary treatment to this side of the road, continuing the stone wall at the road bridge and that of the adjoining land (telephone exchange). The wall would also mirror the existing low stone wall on the opposite side of the road, improving the overall street scene and thoroughfare into Garelochhead centre. 3.3 The proposed low stone boundary and planting will certainly be an improvement on the current condition of the land and help to lessen the existing visual harm of the vehicle storage yard in line with much of the design principles set out within NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking) and Policy 10 (Design). However, the proposed design must be considered against the condition of the land prior to unauthorised development occurring. The storage of vehicles at this site in an incongruous use within the surrounding woodland and greenspace, at such a prominent location. The loss of the visual amenity afforded by the greenfield site is not considered to be outweighed by the proposed design improvements. 3.4 As set out within NPF4 Policy 14, development proposals that are detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places will not be supported. It is considered that the proposed development is detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area owing to the loss of green open space; and does not accord Page 49
Page 50
Classification: OFFICIAL with all six qualities of successful places in terms of being Sustainable, Pleasant, and Healthy. 3.5 There also exists a conflict with LDP2 Policy 05 as the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding land use of open green space. The proposed use does not appropriately respond to the natural environment as the loss of natural space to form a vehicle storage yard for the main garage business located elsewhere cannot be viewed as a sustainable use of this site. 3.6 Further, through a number of site visits completed over the past 18 months, it has been often observed that the site is at near full capacity of approximately 20 vehicles. It is unclear how the site would accommodate 30 designated spaces, turning and manoeuvring space, and planting of trees and shrubs as indicated in the submitted plans within the limitations of the site. Potential revisions to the submitted plans, along with a more detailed landscaping plan, would help to clarify the capacity and parking arrangements possible at the site. 3.7 The loss of amenity value through the development of the greenfield land in this prominent location is not outweighed by the proposed design improvements of the site. There is therefore a conflict with Placemaking principles set out in the Local Development Plan within NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking). 4. Biodiversity and Nature Networks Woodland 4.1 Historical mapping shows that in June 2018 the site was comprised of dense woodland. Between then and 2021 the land has been cleared of all trees and hardstanding installed. In the Supporting Statement it is explained that the removal of woodland predates the unauthorised development and was required for the treatment and removal of Japanese Knotweed. It is argued that the removal of the woodland was not undertaken to facilitate this development and so should not be a consideration in the determination of this application. 4.2 Removal of woodland does not amount to development in itself; nor does the treatment and removal of an invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed. The Applicant has confirmed that the Knotweed was treated by chemical spraying. In the absence of any further information, it is unclear how or why the treatment of Knotweed required the wholesale removal of woodland from the site. The proposed use is clearly incompatible with tree cover on the site and could only be facilitated by its removal. The woodland provided significant amenity value to the Settlement, recognised by virtue of the OSPA designation. Without development the site could reasonably be expected to regenerate over time, with natural woodland restoration. Therefore, the relevant tree and woodland removal policies of the LDP should be considered. 4.3 As set out in the LDP2 Policy 77 (Forestry, Woodland, and Trees), there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting our woodland and removal of woodland resources will only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Similarly, NPF4 Policy 06 (Forestry, Woodland, and Trees) does not support development proposals that have an adverse impact on native woodland of high biodiversity value or involve the fragmentation or severing of woodland habitats. 4.4 The perceived poor quality of the woodland as noted in the Supporting Statement has not been demonstrated within the application. As noted by the Biodiversity Officer, the proposed tree planting is an improvement on the current condition of the site however, there is still a lack of connectivity, and it is recommended that the native woodland on either side Page 50
Page 51
Classification: OFFICIAL of the site be continued through to meet one another. Were this application to be taken forward, a more detailed landscaping plan and potential compensatory planting would be required to offset the harm to biodiversity. Biodiversity 4.5 The site is bounded on two sides by the McAuley Burn. Native riparian edge woodland frames the southern bank of the Burn and, prior to its removal, connected the native woodland of the proposed development site. Whilst trees have also been removed from the adjacent land (also within the OSPA), there still exists substantial woodland habitat to support localised nature networks and those of the riparian corridor within and alongside the Burn. 4.6 As noted by the Biodiversity Officer, prior to unauthorised development the site had suitable habitat present for European Protected Species (EPS) and Protected Species (PS). No information has been submitted to demonstrate that the site was appropriately surveyed to ensure the presence of EPS or PS prior to the woodland removal, treatment of Knotweed and subsequent development of the site. The Officer advises that had this application not been submitted in retrospect they would expect to have tree, species, and habitat surveys to help assess the biodiversity value of the site. As the site has been largely cleared of vegetation (a grassed perimeter to the river banks remain) the information required from these surveys is not available. 4.7 It is also noted that a representation made on behalf of the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust indicates that the Burn is a valuable spawning site for sea trout. Were the application to be progressed, a relevant survey for the Burn would be required to ensure the appropriate measures were in place to preserve and enhance the habitat as required. 4.8 In the application it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development preserves or enhances local habitats within and around the site. Similarly, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a negative impact upon existing green and blue infrastructure or would not result in the fragmentation or loss of integrity of existing green networks; contrary to NPF4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure), and LDP2 Policy 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure). 4.9 As noted by the Development Policy Officer, prior to the recent removal of trees the site contributed towards the integrity of the green infrastructure and associated amenity value. The fragmentation of the OSPA and active development of this site is likely to disrupt localised nature networks. This is contrary to NPF4 Policy 01 (Tackling the climate and nature crises), which seeks to promote nature-positive places and promotes nature recover and restoration. Similarly, in the absence of any information regarding existing habitats and biodiversity, this proposal is considered to be in conflict with NPF4 Policy 03 (Biodiversity), and LDP2 Policy 73 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity). 4.10 The presence of woodland was of important visual amenity value to the local area. Without the proposed development, it is expected that the site would in time be reclaimed by nature and still provide an important visual amenity value to Garelochhead and preserve the function/ amenity value of the OSPA. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the aims of NPF4 Policy 06 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees), LDP2 Policy 77 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees). However, were this application to be taken forward, there is the potential to secure compensatory planting and enhanced landscaping by Condition to restore and strengthen localised nature networks and to mitigate the impact of the development, in line with LDP2 Policy 78 (Woodland Removal). As there is potential for mitigation of the harm, the conflict with Biodiversity and Woodland policies is not considered a determining factor in the assessment of this application. Page 51
Page 52
Classification: OFFICIAL 5. Greenfield Development & Designated Open Space Protection Area 5.1 The development site is relatively modest in size and scale within the Settlement Area, however, as it comprises greenfield development within a designated Open Space Protection Area, without sufficiently meeting the exceptions set out within the relevant Policies, the proposed development is contrary the Local Development Plan. 5.2 Firstly, LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) outlines that development proposals within Settlement Areas would normally be acceptable provided it is within an area of land allocated for that purpose; it is the redevelopment of a brownfield site; is of an appropriate scale and fit, and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area in terms of density, scale, massing design, and access arrangements. The proposed development must also comply with all relevant LDP2 Policies. As the land carries an Open Space designation and is not a brownfield site, the proposal does not accord with this policy. 5.3 In addition, NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) indicates that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless allocated for development or explicitly supported by policies in the local development plan. The site is within the settlement boundary of Garelochhead as defined within LDP2 and is not allocated for the proposed use. 5.4 Further, LDP2 Policy 04 (Sustainable Development) supports development where sustainable development principles are demonstrated. It is argued by the Applicant that the proposed use of this site would alleviate parking, congestion, and road safety issues within the Settlement centre. The proposed vehicular parking site however would be private with no public parking or access. It is considered that parking issues caused by the Applicant through existing business practices could be resolved with better site/business management rather than through the proposed greenfield development upon land unconnected to the main business. The proposed use of the site is therefore of limited community benefit and would not justify a departure from this Policy. 5.5 As noted by the Development Management Policy Officer, an assessment in terms of whether the development would affect the integrity of the overall OSPA as well as the character and amenity value within the village if required in the determination of this application. The proposed development does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land in accordance with LDP2 Policy 04. Significantly, the proposed greenfield development contributes to the loss of amenity open space (g), has an adverse impact upon biodiversity (h), and fails to respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of the settlement, contrary to the aims of this Policy. 5.6 As noted in LDP2 (preamble to policy 81), a greenspace amenity area includes ‘Accessible and non-accessible areas that provide visual amenity functions in and around our settlements such as maintaining setting, identity or character or by providing visual green spaces within more built up areas’. The value of open space designations is also set out by the Scottish Government Planning Advice Note (PAN) 65 (Planning and Open Space), which informs the Local Authority’s policy response to the provision and enhancement of open spaces. The PAN notes that open spaces help to define landscape or townscape structure, provides a range of opportunities for recreation and leisure, and link and create wildlife habitats. 5.7 The site is protected from built development by LDP2 Policy 81 (e) (Open Space Protection Areas) unless the proposed development can demonstrate no loss of the amenity value and alternative provision of equal benefit and accessibility can be made available. Page 52
Page 53
Classification: OFFICIAL 5.8 In the Supporting Statement it is argued that LDP2 Policy 81 exception (a) applies- specifically where the development proposal ‘involves a very minor part of the site and in either case would not affect its integrity and continued existing use or amenity value’. In the Statement it is argued that the development results in ‘the loss of less than 5% of the total area of the OSPA, which historically was never land over which the public were able to gain access’. The applicant also argues that the loss of ‘such a small part of the overall OSPA’ would not affect its overall integrity as the majority of the OSPA would remain fully accessible by members of the pubic for the purposes of informal recreation. The proposed development however is not ancillary to the principal use of the site, and whilst the site may represent a relatively small section of the wider OSPA, the proposal directly affects its integrity as an OSPA site and the amenity value provided by the valuable greenspace. I cannot therefore agree that the requirements of exception (a) of LDP2 Policy 81 are met. 5.10 Exception (e) listed in the policy refers to greenspace amenity areas which is directly applicable to this site and the proposed development. However it has not been adequately demonstrated that there would be no loss of amenity value, nor has an alternative provision of equal benefit and accessibility been made in the submission of this application. Rather, it is considered that the built development and highly visible use of vehicle storage has a significant impact upon the amenity value of the site and the wider OSPA, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. This conflict is considered to be of significant weight to warrant a refusal to this application. 5.11 I note also the recent DPEA Appeal Decision (case reference: PPA-130-2090, Connel, Oban Argyll and Bute) made on 15th August 2024 concerning proposed development within an OSPA. The appeal was dismissed and planning permission refused. In the Decision Notice the Reporter agreed that the piecemeal erosion, or fragmentation of the OSPA at that location, would threaten the overall integrity of the network, contrary to LDP2 Policy 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) and NPF4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure). 6. Economic Policy 6.1 Under LDP2 Policy 22 (b) (Economic Development) development proposals outwith the preferred areas for business and industry are required to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites within the preferred areas. In cases where the need had been demonstrated the development is also required to (a) reflect the character of an area; (c) avoid greenfield sites where brownfield sites is available in close proximity; and (d) will not erode residential amenity of the area. Similarly, NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) requires Applicants to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP; and that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area (d). 6.2 It is argued in the Supporting Statement that ‘The implications for the applicant’s ongoing business operations, should the use of the land for the parking/storage of vehicles not be allowed to continue, is a significant material consideration’. A further Supporting Statement clarifies that that the Applicant’s garage business is ‘Autopoint Fastfit’. Desk-based research shows the garage business is located at 175 Main Street within the centre of Garelochhead. It has been advised by the Applicant that at any one time parking for 30 vehicles is required- a maximum of 15 for sale and 15 for servicing. The garage comprises a large garage/workshop with ample vehicular parking to the front, side and rear in addition to the work bays and space within the large workshop. However, the proposed use of this site is for the storage of 30 vehicles, which would meet the total need of parking spaces for the garage. 6.3 Other than the land being in the Applicant’s ownership there is no explanation or justification as to why the greenfield development of this site is required. Nor is it adequately explained how the existing site is insufficient to support the Applicant’s business operations, or how the additional storage space in this location would support the business, other than Page 53
Page 54
Classification: OFFICIAL reducing the existing congestion caused by the Applicant’s business operations. No further information has been provided to demonstrate how the viability of the business is dependent upon the proposed change of use of land at this site. 6.4 Whilst the viability of an establish business may be a material consideration, there is limited information submitted to demonstrate compliance with/ or justification for divergence from the Local Development Plan. The application before me fails to address policy requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). The conflict with this policy is of significant weight to amount to a refusal to this application. 7. Residential Amenity 7.1 The use of the site for vehicle storage is relatively passive and presents no concerns for harm to residential amenity in terms of noise, smells, vibrations, odours, or light pollution in accordance with LDP2 Policy 14 (Bad Neighbour Development). Whilst the application suggests that customers can collect vehicles following MOT/servicing, these works will be undertaken at the garage and this site used for car storage only. It is expected that the number of customers attending to collect vehicles from this site rather than the garage itself would be minimal and that the purpose of the site would primarily be for the passive storage of vehicles. This in turn presents no concerns regarding residential disturbance through intensification of use. There are however significant concerns regarding the harm to the visual amenity value of the site for the local area. 8. Road Safety & Parking 8.1 It is noted that there is sufficient distance between the nearby road junction and the site access, with adequate visibility entering and exiting the site. There are no objections from the Roads Authority- subject to standard conditions set out in the Consultation Response- and no identifiable harm to road safety from this proposal to raise conflict with the Local Development Plan. 8.2 A representation made on behalf of the local Residents Association suggests that the site could be regulated by ensuring individual vehicles are not kept on site for a prolonged period of time and that a register of stored vehicles is made available for inspection to be secured by planning condition. I believe the intention is to ensure that the site is not used for end of life vehicles or long term open air storage and therefore likely degradation of vehicles on the site. Were this application to have been taken forward, it is likely that a planning condition to regularise the type and longevity of vehicle storage on the site would be appropriate to ensure no end of life vehicles were stored or dismantled on site in the interests of residential and visual amenity and environmental protection. 9. Flooding 9.1 SEPA flood maps highlight that the site is at a high risk of fluvial flooding with partial risk of future coastal flooding. A flood risk report has been submitted with the application to suggest that the level of likely flooding is unlikely to have any significant effect on the site as a vehicle storage yard, and that in the event of a flood event waters are likely to quickly retreat to the Burn. The proposed development does not meet the criteria exemptions under NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) in that it does not involve the redevelopment of an existing site; is not a water compatible use; and is not essential infrastructure required for operational reasons. However, as the proposed development does not introduce a vulnerable use to the site which minimise potential harm to the public in the event of a flooding event. The conflict with flood risk policies could be addressed through appropriate construction methods, landscaping, and water management programme to ensure appropriate drainage and management to ensure no hardstanding and vehicles/ vehicles parts including fuel and oil do not escape into the Burn in the event of a flood. Page 54
Page 55
Classification: OFFICIAL 9.2 The conflict of NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and LDP2 Policy 55 (Flooding) could be minimised through appropriate drainage, water management, and construction quality secured by planning condition, and is thus not a significant determining factor in the assessment of this application. 10. Conclusion 10.1 This retrospective application seeks planning permission to regularise the change of use of land for the storage of vehicles in association with the Applicant’s garage business located within the centre of Garelochhead. Whilst the proposed improvements to the existing unauthorised development will enhance the condition of the site, there remains significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. 10.2 The proposed design improvements would enhance the current condition of the site, and the proposed use presents no obvious harm to residential amenity in terms of noise disturbance, vibrations, smells, etc. Harm to biodiversity and green and blue nature networks are not fully addressed by this application, although further mitigation and improvement could be secured through planning condition were this application to be progressed. No concerns have been raised in regards to road safety with no objections from the Roads Authority. Whilst the site is liable to flooding, it is not considered that the proposed use would put people at risk and potential environmental damage could be mitigated through better design and water management that could also be secured through planning condition. 10.3 A number of letters of support have been submitted from local residents encouraged by the proposed improvement of the condition of the site and the opportunity to alleviate parking concerns in the village by relocating the vehicles associated with the Applicant’s business to this site. However, the proposed greenfield development is to create a private vehicle storage yard for the use of the Applicant and presents no discernible wider public benefit to justify the departure from the Local Development Plan. 10.4 The development site is within a designated Open Space Protection Area as set out in LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). Whilst the designation does not prevent all development within the OSPA, developers are required to meet the exemptions set out in the Policy to robustly justify any departure. The proposal does not adequately meet the exceptions to development and is in clear conflict with the Policy. The proposed development would contribute to the fragmentation of the OSPA and actively devalues the amenity value of the greenspace, and of the wider OSPA. 10.5 The proposal does not give rise to wider economic benefit and it has not been adequately demonstrated that this development accords with LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). There is limited information submitted to meet the terms of and to justify a departure from the Development Plan in respect to the development of the greenfield and OSPA site for the purpose of business operations unconnected with the site. 10.6 The proposed development is in conflict with the Local Development Plan, with no significant material considerations to justify this departure. It is therefore recommended that this application is refused planning permission: 1. The proposed development presents significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings); LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas); Policy 04 (Sustainable Development); and Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). a) The greenfield development is not allocated for this proposed use, contrary to NPF4 Policy 09. Page 55
Page 56
Classification: OFFICIAL b) The proposed use on greenfield site is not compatible with the surrounding land use and designation as Open Space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 01. c) The proposed use does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land and would devalue the amenity open space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 04. d) The proposed development would lead to fragmentation of the OSPA to the detriment of visual amenity and character of the area and of the wider designation, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. 2. There is significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 26 (d) (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). a) The site is not allocated or Business and Industry use and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP, nor that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area contrary to NPF4 Policy 26 (d) and LDP2 Policy 22. b) It has not been adequately demonstrated that the development proposal meets the terms of LDP2 Policy 22 (b). Page 56
Page 57
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 O 1:1,000 0 9.5 194.75 Meters Location Plan Relative to Planning Application: 24/01249/PP Page 57
Page 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 59
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE (PAN) ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 25/00490/PAN Applicant: Beaufort Wind Limited Proposal: 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 Site Address: Beinn Ghlas Wind Farm, Taynuilt ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION Proposal of Application Notices only relate to National and Major Applications, as defined by the Government’s planning hierarchy, and are a statutory requirement prior to the submission of a further associated planning application, in line with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. The PAN submission marks the start of a minimum 12 week period to allow for community consultation before an application can be lodged. This PAN submission was made valid on 28.3.2025. In considering this item, Members should restrict comments to issues relating to the material considerations which may be relevant in the determination of the proposed development and should refrain from expressing opinion as to the likely acceptability of development in advance of any subsequent application being presented for determination. Any opinions or views expressed by Councillors at the pre-application stage must be made mindful of the overarching requirements of fairness, impartiality and of keeping an open mind. The process provides opportunity for Officers to give feedback to the prospective applicant on issues which Members would wish to see addressed within the planning application submission. The submitted information includes: • Proposal of Application Notice • Location Plan • Copy of newspaper advert The Proposal of Application Notice describes the proposed development as “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”. The Applicant has confirmed the following consultation steps have been undertaken: Page 59 Agenda Item 6
Page 60
Classification: OFFICIAL a) Local Councillors for the Oban North and Lorn Ward were notified, prior to the PAN being submitted. b) The following Community Councils were notified on the 25 March 2025, prior to the PAN being submitted: Taynuilt, Connel, Kilmore and Kilbride, Ardchattan, Avich and Kilchrenan and Glenorchy and Innishail. c) The Constituency MSP, Jenni Minto and the Constituency MP Brendan O’Hara were notified, prior to the PAN being submitted. In addition, the following consultation steps have been undertaken: a) Public Exhibitions were first held at Taynuilt Village Hall and North Connel Hall, in January 2023. b) Public Exhibitions were held at Portsonachan Village Hall, Portsonachan, on the 22nd of April 2025 from 16:00 to 19:00 hours, North Connell Hall, North Connell, on the 23rd of April 2025 from 10.00 to 13.00 hours, at Taynuilt Village Hall, Taynuilt, on the 23rd of April from 16.00 to 19.00 hours and at Kilmore Village Hall, Kilmore, on the 24th of April 2025 from 10.00 to 13.00 hours. c) Two press notices to be placed in both the Oban Times and the Argyllshire Advertiser at least 7 days in advance of the proposed public meetings to be held, as set out above. d) The information presented at the April 2025 public exhibitions will also be made published online from 4pm on Tuesday 22nd April at: www.beinnghlasrepowering.co.uk e) Postcards with details of the public events will be posted to properties within 10 km radius of the proposed wind turbines two weeks prior to the public exhibitions. The postcards will include contact details which interested parties can use to contact the Project team. f) The landowner, agricultural tenants, properties within 2 km of the Proposed Development, individuals who completed comment forms at the January 2023 public events and parties who have previously been in touch with the Project team to raise queries / provide comments will continue to be kept informed about the project and provided with contact details which can be used to raise queries. Officers originally considered that the steps set out in the PAN submission were not acceptable and are therefore not considered to be in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Regulations, to ensure appropriate community consultation is undertaken. To be considered to be PAC compliant by the council, the 2 rounds of public events, required to be undertaken by the regulations, should only be held after the PAN has been formally submitted. In this respect, following ongoing discussions with the agent, agreement has now been reached that a further round of public events will be undertaken at both North Connel and Taynuilt, and associated adverts placed in local papers advising of the location, dates and times. This proposal for further community consultation is considered acceptable to officers, and to be PAC compliant. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on the description of the development contained within the proposal of application notice, the forthcoming application is anticipated to comprise of 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 (ref: 97/00719/DET), making use of some of the existing infrastructure on the site. The project website states that the proposed turbines will generate up to 33.6 MW of Page 60
Page 61
Classification: OFFICIAL power, in comparison to the current installed capacity of 8.4 MW for the existing wind farm. The PAN submission is accompanied by a site location plan. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site comprises of an operational wind farm located within low, rugged hills, scattered with small outcrops of rocks and scoured with steep sided streams. There is open moorland, predominantly upland heath and mires including bog pools, on the higher ground and a mixture of rough grassland and woodland on the lower slopes. There is a combination of native deciduous woodland and commercial coniferous forestry to the southeast of the site. The existing Beinn Ghlas Wind Farm, approved in August 1998, comprises 14 no. wind turbines with a tip height of approximately 54.1 m, blade length of 19.1 m each with a capacity of 600kW, providing an overall capacity of 8.4MW. Each turbine is supported on a tapered, cylindrical tower approximately 35 m high and has a three bladed rotor approximately 43 m in diameter. The existing turbines at the site of the proposed repowering development would be removed, and the site would be reinstated, except where infrastructure would be used for the repowering project. Within the surrounding area there is a combination of native deciduous woodland and commercial coniferous forestry to the north and southeast of the site. There is evidence in the wider area of cultivated land and improved grazing but generally the land has been used non-intensively. A habitat management area was established to the west of the existing Beinn Ghlas Wind Farm to improve grouse habitat on the Duntanachan Estate relative to the Barguillean Estate (i.e. the wind farm area). The objective was to increase grouse densities on the Duntanachan Estate to encourage the Beinn Ghlas golden eagles away from the wind farm area, which would help offset any effects from the wind farm on the eagles. Vegetation surveys and grouse monitoring continue to be undertaken, and the habitat management area remains fenced to encourage the ongoing enhancement of the habitat at Duntanachan to support prey for golden eagle. 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 are predominantly separated from the site by a range of hills to the south of Loch Etive. The area surrounding the site contains few other settlements. 4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY This is not a planning application and therefore does not require evaluating and determining in accordance with Section 25 of the Planning Act against the Development Plan and its policies. However, in considering the merits of this PAN, a number of Development Plan Policy considerations are relevant. The policies likely to be considered include: National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate mitigation and adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural places Page 61
Page 62
Classification: OFFICIAL NPF5 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland and trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic assets and places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood risk and water management Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Historic Built Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Land Use Designations in LDP 2: • Zoned as within the Countryside area. 5.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS In respect of this proposal, it is considered that the following matters will be material considerations in the determination of any future planning application: • Settlement strategy; • Supporting the sustainable growth of renewables; • Location, nature and design of proposed development; • Spatial framework for wind farms; • Net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities; • The scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets; Page 62
Page 63
Classification: OFFICIAL • Effect on greenhouse gas emissions; • Impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, noise and shadow flicker (including cumulative impacts); • Landscape and visual impacts, including effects on wild land (including cumulative impacts); • Effects on natural heritage, including birds (including cumulative impacts); • Impacts on carbon rich soils, using the carbon calculator (including cumulative impacts); • Public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes (including cumulative impacts); • Impacts on the cultural heritage, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings (including cumulative impacts); • Impacts on tourism and recreation (including cumulative impacts); • Aviation, defence and seismological recording (including cumulative impacts); • Impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts); • Impacts on road traffic and adjacent trunk roads (including cumulative impacts); • Effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative impacts); • The need for conditions relating to the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration (including cumulative impacts); opportunities for energy storage (including cumulative impacts); • The need for a robust planning obligation to ensure that operators achieve site restoration (including cumulative impacts) • Detailed design, scale and massing; • Planning history of the site; • Planning Advice Notes & Web-based Renewables Guidance; • Renewable energy and climate change framework; • Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019; • The Future of Energy in Scotland: Scottish Energy Strategy, Scottish Government (December 2017) and position Update dated 16.3.21; • Scotland’s Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan: Ministerial statement (Dated 10.1.23); • The views of statutory consultees in respect of any formal planning application; and • Any other material considerations raised within representations. 6.0 CONCLUSION This report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations against which any future planning application will be considered, as well as potential material considerations and key issues, based upon the information received to date. The list is not exhaustive, and further matters may arise, as and when a planning application is received, and in the light of public representations and consultation responses. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN to allow these Page 63
Page 64
Classification: OFFICIAL matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Author of Report: Stuart Ramsay Date: 2 May 2025 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 7 May 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 64
Page 65
" "" " """"" " " " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 25/00490/PAN O 1:35,000 0 325 650162.5 Meters Application Site Page 65
Page 66
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 67
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE Development and Economic Growth 21 May 2025 Development Management Performance Update – FQ4 2024/25 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ4 2024/25. 1.2 The attached document Appendix 1 provides an overview of the current demands upon the Development Management Service, its output during this period, the handling of the current backlog of casework, and the average time taken to determine planning applications. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that PPSL: (a) Review and agree the content of the report. 3.0 DETAIL & BACKGROUND 3.1 The performance of the Council’s Development Management Service has been significantly impacted by the legacy effect of the Covid Pandemic upon interruption to workflow and a subsequent increase in demand for regulatory activity relating to new development. This situation has been exacerbated by the Service having previously been down-sized in response to the longer-term wider financial pressures facing the Council combined with a number of long-term vacancies that proved extremely difficult to fill as a result of a national shortage of planning professionals. The determination of planning applications has also been impacted by the uncertainty created by a changing planning policy backdrop with the Scottish Government’s adoption of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in February 2023 with minimal transition arrangements having had a noticeable adverse impact on FQ4 2022/23 output as a result of a significant volume of casework requiring to be reassessed prior to its determination. The cumulative effect of these extraordinary pressures has given rise to a significant backlog of planning casework that continues to impact upon the ability of the Council to deliver the Development Management Service in an efficient and effective manner at this time, and impacts upon customer service. At FQ4 2022/23 the backlog of applications amounted to approximately 375 formal applications and 175 pre-application enquiries. Page 67 Agenda Item 7
Page 68
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.2 An Improvement Action Plan (IAP) was prepared in early 2023 in response to the significant decrease in performance and wider issues impacting upon the resourcing of the service and its interactions with customers. The implementation of the IAP has ensured the delivery of additional capacity within the Development Management Service and along with this improvement initially in terms of output and more latterly improving trends are also now able to be identified in relation to the making of timely determinations. Building upon the foundation of the IAP, the Development Management Service Plan and Development Management Charter approved by PPSL on 18th September 2024 set out updated performance targets for the Service. These include a wider range of measures that seek to demonstrate the delivery of individual elements of the IAP and in addition to timeliness include measures which can be utilised to measure customer satisfaction, and staff welfare. Updated back office procedures are required to efficiently collect the data required for reporting on the enhanced range of measures and it is intended that these will be in place by the end of 2024/25. 3.3 DEMAND: The Development Management Service receive approximately 2000 planning and related application case work items on an annual basis. The Development Management Service is resourced with the expectation that demand will be relatively constant and steady throughout the year. Whilst the volume of new submissions decreased by approximately 10% during 2020/21 they had returned to and exceeded pre-pandemic levels during 2021/22. Submission rates have subsequently been maintained at a high level and during 2022/23 were 5% up on pre-pandemic levels. Appendix 1, Sheet 1 shows that whilst submission rates continued to show an increase in demand during FQ1 2024/25 this has decreased slightly during the subsequent quarters through to FQ4. Notwithstanding the slight decline in the number of new applications the volume of new submissions during 2024/25 remained comparable with the previous year. 3.4 The resource constraints and performance of the Development Management Service have been highlighted at a senior level within the Council and continue to be subject to regular reporting to Policy Leads/ELT. An improving financial position following the reform of statutory planning fees by the Scottish Government in April 2022 has supported the creation of 3 new professional officer posts that provide additional capacity within the Service. During FQ4 2024/25 the DM Service has largely operated with a full staff compliment but has continued to be impacted by unplanned absence, including the impact of work related stress. In an effort to make further inroads in the backlog of casework, an additional two agency staff have been retained to augment the MAKI and BCHL teams; prior notification of upcoming vacancies has resulted in Agency staff being retained to provide cover whilst recruitment is undertaken as a means of supporting existing staff with health and performance issues and maintaining productivity. The use of temporary staff resource to provide additional capacity has had a significant positive impact and has enabled the team to reduce the volume of ‘live’ applications by over 55% in a period of 19 months with the number of live applications reducing from 852 in Sept. 2023 to 463 by end of March 2025. The reduced volume of ‘live’ caseworks has resulted in more manageable individual Page 68
Page 69
Classification: OFFICIAL caseloads for planning officers and is starting to become evident in reducing time periods for the determination of applications and a reduced level of complaints relating to failure to communicate effectively and efficiently with applicants. 3.5 OUTPUT: The most positive impact of the increased availability of professional officer resource within the DM Service has however been evident with the continued delivery of above average output demonstrated since FQ1 2023/24. Output for the most recent reporting period, FQ4 2024/25 maintains a period of excellent performance. (Appendix 1, Sheet 2). 3.6 Improving output also means that the Service is now making significant inroads in addressing the outstanding casework backlog (Appendix 1, Sheet 3). At the end of FQ3 2024/25 the identified backlog of formal casework had reduced to a negligible level. A review of ‘live’ casework has however identified that whilst there has been significant progress in the management of the backlog some 86 ‘legacy’ cases which are older than 1 year from validation remain ‘live’ (Appendix 1, Sheet 4). 3.7 PRE-APPLICATION ENQUIRIES: Demand for pre-application advice remains high, particularly following the adoption of LDP2 in 2024. Pre-application turnover is currently on track. Performance during FQ4 has met demand from new submissions. A commitment has been provided to review and improve the pre-application process, this will include the provision of enhanced information on the Council website to allow a greater proportion of customers to ‘self-serve’; development and roll out of a new pre-application service has been identified as a priority project for 2025. 3.8 ‘HOUSEHOLDER’ DEVELOPMENT: The performance of the Development Management Service is also measured in terms of the time taken to determine applications as it is recognised that failure to provide timely decisions can create uncertainty and be detrimental to the delivery of development across the Council area. Overall ‘time-taken’ measures are however currently skewed by the determination of a high volume of older ‘legacy’ applications that have accrued as part of the planning backlog. The increasing proportion of older applications being determined from FQ3 2022/23 onwards is identified in the bar graphs that provide a breakdown of application age within the average time measures (Appendix 1, Sheet 5 and Sheet 6) and demonstrate that ‘legacy’ applications are successfully being targeted for determination. FQ4 has seen 4 remaining ‘legacy’ ‘householder’ items determined providing an expectation that the significant improvement to underlying performance should start to become evident in the overall average time measures during 2025/26. 3.9 The determination of ‘legacy’ applications for the time being does however continue to have adverse consequences for overall average time performance measures as the determination of a relatively small number of older applications Page 69
Page 70
Classification: OFFICIAL significantly impacts upon these KPIs. This is particularly evident again within the ‘householder’ average time measure (Appendix 1, Sheet 5) where despite 88% of all householder determinations being determined in an average time of 8.5 weeks this measure is significantly impacted by the determination of just 4 older applications that have cumulatively added 5.7 weeks to the average time period for determination of this KPI. The overall reduction in ‘legacy’ items has however allowed for improvement of the headline KPI from 15.9 weeks in FQ 3 to 14.2 weeks in FQ4. It is also highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. During FQ4 the Council determined a number of legacy applications which have impacted on the raw data relating to the average time period, including items that were delayed largely due to matters outwith the control of the Council. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the national average for householder applications at FQ2 2024/25 was 8.7 weeks. 3.10 ‘LOCAL’ DEVELOPMENT: The determination of ‘legacy’ applications had a similar impact upon the average time taken measure applied to all other ‘local’ planning applications (Appendix 1, Sheet 6) where the determination of 20 ‘legacy’ applications during FQ4 cumulatively added 10.8 weeks to an average time measure that reports on the determination of 147 applications in total. During FQ4 2024/25 86% of all other ‘local’ applications determined were less than 1 year old at the time of their determination and were determined in an average of 15.6 weeks (previously 81% in 17.0 weeks at FQ3). 75% of the total were less than 6 months old and determined in 12.2 weeks on average (previously 67% in 12.7 weeks in FQ3). The average time taken to determine ‘all other local applications’ has improved during FQ4 from 31.2 weeks to 26.4 weeks. It is again highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. During FQ4 the Council determined a number of legacy applications which have impacted on the raw data relating to the average time period, including items that were delayed largely due to matters outwith the control of the Council. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the national average for local applications (excluding householder) at FQ2 2024/25 was 14.8 weeks. 3.11 CONCLUSION: The backlog of planning casework (Appendix 1, Sheet 3) at the end of FQ4 has reduced by a further 50 formal applications during FQ4. Whilst this is an improving position it is highlighted that the determination of legacy items will continue to impact upon performance. Whilst it is expected that headline performance on ‘householder’ items should return within target early in 2025/26, the determination of extant ‘legacy’ items will continue to impact on ‘local’ application performance until such time as the remaining items have been determined, and subject to Page 70
Page 71
Classification: OFFICIAL appropriate action which prevents new ‘legacy’ items from accruing. Analysis of the granular data shows that average time periods for determining applications are continuing to reduce and that despite headline figures that might raise alarm, the majority of applications continue to be processed within much faster timescales that are showing improvement over time and which within the target of being within 10% of the national average. Improving performance also underlines the importance of ensuring that the Development Management Service is adequately resourced as improved efficiency in the handling of applications has been attained through the reduction in individual officer’s caseloads to manageable levels with limited exceptions 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy None 4.2 Financial None 4.3 Legal None 4.4 HR None 4.5 Customer Service Requirement to manage customer expectations in the determination planning and related applications 4.6 Risk Failure to determine planning and related applications in efficient and effective manner would have potential to adversely impact upon the local economy, delivery of housing, and health and wellbeing of individuals. 4.7 Climate Change None 4.8 Fairer Scotland Duty 4.9 Equalities – Protected Characteristics None 4.10 Socio-economic Duty None 4.11 Island Communities None 4.12 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) None Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead: Cllr Kieron Green 8th May 2025 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – FQ4 2024/25 DM report to ELT Page 71
Page 72
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 73
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Statutory 517 478 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 2012 75.9% 1982 76.1% 1751 74.3% 1690 76.1% Non-Statutory 5 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 56 2.1% 51 2.0% 87 3.7% 85 3.8% PREAPP 136 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 582 22.0% 570 21.9% 520 22.1% 447 20.1% Totals 658 656 651 685 674 607 643 679 594 631 549 584 602 549 542 529 2650 2603 2358 2222 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework received. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and confirms that demand for the determination of planning applications and other statutory activity of the Council as the Planning Authority remains high and relatively constant in its volume. End March2025: Submission rates for FQ4 25/26 are slightly below average but do not give cause for concern at this time. FY24/25 Split of Casework ReceivedNew Casework Received FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 This tab provides information on the volume of DM case work received by financial quarter and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non- statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. 517 478 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 386 5 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 26 136 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 117 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Volume of New Casework Received PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 76.1% 3.8% 20.1% Split of Casework Received: FY24/25 Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Appendix 1 Page 73
Page 74
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Statutory 410 411 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 1610 72.4% 1549 74.5% 1778 75.1% 1780 76.5% Non-Statutory 12 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 46 2.1% 33 1.6% 75 3.2% 88 3.8% PREAPP 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 568 25.5% 496 23.9% 513 21.7% 459 19.7% 2224 2078 2366 2327 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework closed. data source = UNIform (Access queries) This tab provides detail on the volume of DM casework that has been closed and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non-statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. The data set covers the last 16 financial quarters and demsonstrates that regardless of performance issues in respect of timeliness output remains high. There has been a notable improvement in productivity from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the increasing availability of officer resource and a more settled position following the significant disruption to workflow arising from NPF4 (FQ4 2022/23); this improving position has continued into FQ1 2024/25. End March 2025: Productivity during 2024/25 to date has been excellent and builds on the improved performance seen across 2023/24. Output during FQ4 has been maintained at an acceptable level. Commentary: FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 Casework Closed FY24/25 Split of Casework Closed 410 411 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 425 12 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 25 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Volume of Casework Closed PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 76.5% 3.8% 19.7% Split of Casework Closed: FY24/25 Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Page 74
Page 75
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Closed 422 423 402 409 419 377 407 379 495 439 479 440 481 495 442 450 Validated 405 460 438 450 462 455 436 509 462 428 366 428 425 425 370 400 Difference (no) 17 -37 -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 This data is unfiltered - it shows the number of cases closed vs number of cases validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Casework Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new statutory and non-statutory casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of applications that have accrued since FQ1 2021/22. Commentary: The graph shows that after 7 financial quarters (FQ2 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23) where output was lower than input, a backlog of 375 casework items were accumulated. During this period the DM Service were impacted by Covid restrictions/recovery and required to operate with a number of key vacancies due to a national shortage of planning professionals. Improving performance during 2023/24 has however reduced the backlog at the end of that period to 206 items. As significant improvement in performance is evident from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the resolution of key staffing issues within the Service, this improving position has been maintained moving forward from that point and throughout 2024/25 to date. End March 2025: Turnover during FQ4 has agaian seen output exceed demand for new applications. The cumulative backlog since FQ2 21/22 has now been addressed however it has been identified that there is still a significant number of legacy items over and above normal case load volume to be addressed. 17 -37 -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 50 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Casework Turnover Rate Page 75
Page 76
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Closed 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 116 Validated 129 162 118 153 159 137 117 140 117 132 120 130 115 92 103 116 Difference (no) 5 10 -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 Number of PREAPP's closed vs number of PREAPP's validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) PREAPP Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new pre-application casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of pre- application enquiries that have accrued since FQ1 2021/22. Commentary: The Graph shows the accumulation of a backlog of pre- application enquiries over the period FQ3 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23 during a period where the DM Service operated with a number of key vacancies and has experienced significant workflow disruption with the introduction of NPF4. It had previously been identified that the backlog amounted to around 180 applications; however following a review of the data input and accuracy of the data available (see detail of correction below) it has become evident that earlier reports included cases that were invalid and cases that had not been closed off proprerly in the back office system. The updated report confirms that the backlog of pre-application enquiries reached a maximum of just over 50 items; this position has seen significant improvement. End March 2025: The backlog of pre-apps is currently neglibible with new submissions being turned over on a regular and timely basis. Work remains ongoing to review and improve the pre-application advice service. 5 10 -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 0 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 PREAPP Turnover Rate Page 76
Page 77
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 < 6 months 8.5 9.7 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 < 6 months 87 80 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 < 1 year 9.1 9.7 10.8 13.3 12.4 12.4 12.0 17.3 17.8 15.4 14.6 18.3 12.4 12.6 12.6 9.8 6 months - 1 year 2 0 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 < 2 years 9.1 9.7 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 18.5 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 19.0 13.5 12.2 1 - 2 years 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 All Determined 9.1 9.7 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 Over 2 years 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 Total 89 80 94 88 76 76 86 62 59 83 75 75 60 75 59 68 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Householder" = Development Type N01. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' casework and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service from FQ1 2023/24 to move from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a high volume of 'legacy' applications continue to be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of performance across FQ4 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from reporting to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Peformance during FQ1 2024/25 has shown a marked improvement which demonstrates that the majority of householder applications are now being determined in much shorter time periods. End March 2025: During FQ4 to date 4 householder 'legacy' items have been determined with the effect of adding 4.4 weeks to the overall avereage time measure. During FQ4 2025/26 Householder Applications have been determined in an average of 14.2 weeks (improvement from 15.9 weeks in FQ3 24/25). The underlying performance on the larger volume of newer applications determined is much healthier; in this respect it is highlighted that more applications are being determined at an early stage with 88% of all householder applications in FQ4 were newer items determined in an average time of 8.5 weeks (previously 88% in 10.1 weeks during FQ3 24/25). Average Time to Determine Applications: Householder ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Householder - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Householder Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'householder' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 8.5 9.7 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 8.5 9.8 12.2 9.1 9.7 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 14.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Average no. of weeks to determine: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months < 1 year < 2 years All Determined 87 80 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 60 2 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 4 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 3 1 2 4 1 1 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 % Split: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 77
Page 78
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 < 6 months 10.8 11.3 11.1 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 < 6 months 158 142 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 < 1 year 12.7 14.1 13.5 13.4 14.5 14.0 18.0 19.2 19.3 18.7 18.8 21.0 19.0 16.3 17.0 15.6 6 months - 1 year 12 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 < 2 years 14.6 15.3 13.9 14.2 15.7 16.1 19.9 23.6 21.9 25.0 25.8 29.3 26.1 24.5 25.6 20.7 1 - 2 years 6 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 All Determined 14.6 16.7 18.5 16.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 Over 2 years 0 2 4 3 1 1 0 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 Total 176 167 136 141 132 136 153 105 129 156 155 144 163 176 155 147 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Local (excluding Householder)" = Development Types N02B/C, N03B/C, N04B/C, N05B/C, N06B/C, N07B/C, N08B/C, N09B/C, N10B/C. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service is to move during 2023/24 from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a higher volume of 'legacy' applications will be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of overall average time performance measures from FQ2 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from considerations to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework that has been determined. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Performance during FQ1 2024/25 has markedly improved and appears to indicate the start of an improving trend with decreasing time periods. End March 2025: FQ4 has seen 20 legacy applications cleared with the effect of adding 10.8 weeks to the overall average time measure which now sits at 26.4 weeks (improvement from 31.2 weeks in FQ3 2024/25). It is highlighted that the volume of legacy determinations has come as a result of significant progress in clearing the backlog of applications and, depist the significant adverse impact on average time measures, is a noteable achievement. It is also noted that some of the negative impact is attributed to delays to determination which were outwith the control of the planning authority and which will be adjusted in statutory reporting by the Scottish Government. Discounting the effect of legacy cases it is however evident that performance overall is continuing to show improvement. During FQ4 the determination of non-legacy local applications were undertaken in an average of 15.6 weeks (improvement from 17 weeks in FQ3 24/25). It is also highlighted that more applications are being determined at an early stage with 75% of all local applications in FQ4 to date were newer items determined in an average time of 12.2 weeks (previously 66% in 12.7 weeks in FQ3 2024/25). Average Time to Determine Applications: Local (Excluding Householder) ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Local (Excluding Householder) - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Local (excluding Householder) Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'local' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 10.8 11.3 11.1 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.2 12.7 15.614.6 20.7 14.6 16.7 18.5 16.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 26.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 Ave no. of weeks to determine: Local (Excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) 158 142 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 110 12 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 17 6 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 13 2 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 7 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 % Split: Local (excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 78
Page 79
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL & REGULATORY SUPPORT 21 MAY 2025 PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee agreed at their meeting on 18 November 2020 that Officers should prepare periodic reports at least every six months providing updates on the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area. Page 79 Agenda Item 8
Page 80
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL & REGULATORY SUPPORT 21 MAY 2025 PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Following publication of the Scottish Government’s best practice guidance on the power to refuse to grant private hire licences on the grounds of over provision, consideration was given to a report inviting Members to amend the procedure for determining private hire car licence applications. The Committee agreed at their meeting on 18th November 2020: a) that all future unopposed applications for private hire car licences may be granted by Officers on a delegated basis; and b) that Officers should prepare periodic reports at least every six months, for the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee providing updates on the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area. The last report was considered by the Committee on 20th November 2024. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 That the members note the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area as detailed in Appendix 1 and 2. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the numbers. 5.0 CONCLUSION Page 80
Page 81
Classification: OFFICIAL 5.1 An update of these figures will be provided on a 6 monthly basis. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy-none 6.2 Financial-none 6.3 Legal-none 6.4 HR-none 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty:-none 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics-none 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty-none 6.5.3 Islands-none 6.6 Climate Change-none 6.7 Risk-none 6.8 Customer Service-none 6.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC)-none Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead Kieron Green 28 April 2025 For further information contact: Sheila MacFadyen Ext: 4265 Appendix 1 – Statistics on Number of Taxi Licences – April 2025 Appendix 2 – Statistics on Number of Private Hire Licences – April 2025 Page 81
Page 82
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix 1 STATISTICS ON NUMBER OF TAXI LICENCES – ARGYLL AND BUTE – APRIL 2025 Area No. Taxis referenced in LVSA Report 2019 No. Licences lapsed since LVSA report New licences granted since LVSA report Licences surrendered since LVSA report Current Total As at 28/04/2025 No. Licences as at May 2024 Bute & Cowal 57 Mistake on report Actual no. 54 6 1 0 49 55 Helensburgh & Lomond 48 6 22 12 52 49 Mid Argyll,Kintyre & Islay 24 6 2 1 19 23 Oban, Lorn & Isles 52 10 8 3 47 51 Page 82
Page 83
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix 2 STATISTICS ON NUMBER OF PRIVATE HIRE CAR LICENCES (with addresses in the areas) – ARGYLL AND BUTE – APRIL 2025 Area No. Private Hire Car referenced in LVSA Report 2019 No. Licences lapsed since LVSA report New licences granted since LVSA report Licences surrendered since LVSA report Current Total As at 28/04/2025 No. as at May 2024 Bute & Cowal 1 6 5 0 0 4 Helensburgh & Lomond 14 8 13 6 13 8 Mid Argyll,Kintyre & Islay 37 11 16 5 37 33 Oban, Lorn & Isles 16 3 2 4 11 10 Page 83
Page 84
This page is intentionally left blank