Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 23 April 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 23 April 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 15 April 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 23 APRIL 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 19 March 2025 (Pages 3 - 16) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 9 April 2025 (Pages 17 - 48) 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) (Pages 49 - 82) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME ANNUAL UPDATE - LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3 (Pages 83 - 108) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth E1 6. EMERGENCY TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (Pages 109 - 120) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:- E1 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 19 MARCH 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Tim Williams, Area Team Leader (Oban, Lorn and the Isles) David Moore, Senior Planning Officer Lesley Cuthbertson, Planning Enforcement Officer Raymond Kane, Traffic & Development Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Paul Kennedy declared a financial interest in the report dealt with at item 7 of this Minute (Civic Government (Scotland) 1982: Taxi Fare Scale Review) as he was a taxi driver. He intimated that he would leave the meeting for this item. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 14 January 2025 was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 January 2025 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 January 2025 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 January 2025 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 February 2025 at 10.00 am was approved as a correct record. f) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 February 2025 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
4. HIGHLAND HOLIDAYS: EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE INTERNAL LAYOUT OF EXISTING HOLIDAY PARK, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF NEW WATER STORAGE TANKS AND A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (PART RETROSPECTIVE): OBAN CARAVAN AND CAMPING PARK GALLANACHMORE, GALLANACH ROAD, OBAN (REF: 24/00745/PP) The Planning Enforcement Officer spoke to the terms of the report. Planning permission is sought for extensions and alterations to the internal layout of an existing holiday park and seeks to improve and enhance an existing tourism offering at the site. The application site lies within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area’ and designated as a ‘Local Landscape Area’. The site has the benefit of planning permission ref 98/00455/COU which was granted on 21 May 1998 to be used for the siting of 15 static caravans, 150 tents/touring caravans/motorhomes, 15 tents and 6 chalets which can be used all year round. Additional tents can be accommodated in a low lying part of the site near the entrance between the months of May and September. The proposed development is for the change of use of two small parcels of land to enlarge the site boundary, siting of an additional 50 units/caravans/lodges, repositioning of 6 camping pods, repositioning of 3 chalets to use as permanent staff accommodation, siting of water tanks, provision of private water supply and installation of a sewage treatment plant. A total of 29 objections and 14 expressions of support have been received in respect of this proposed development. The main thrust of the objections raised relate to the unsuitability of the public road from which the application site is accessed and potential landscape impacts. In this regard the Applicant has worked closely with the Council’s Roads Authority to agree the proposed access regime to serve the proposed development. Other concerns raised by objectors relate to biodiversity, use of the site, water and drainage and noise and light emanating from the site. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that a suite of safeguarding conditions can address these concerns. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy with issues raised by third parties not amounting to material planning considerations that have not been addressed through the processing of the application. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling and an additional condition relating to occupancy which had been circulated to the Committee for consideration. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Page 4
Page 5
Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 22.04.2024; 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 2023_0008_00 23.04.2024 Site Plan – As Existing 2023_0008_02 23.04.2024 Site Plan 2023_0008_03 23.04.2024 Site Plan – As Proposed 2023_0008_01B 23.04.2024 Original ground level survey 25.07.2024 Plans and Elevations of Water Tanks 2023_008-04 23.10.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – Vehicular Access Within 3 months of the date that planning permission has been granted, plans and particulars of the means of vehicular access to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. Such details shall incorporate: • An additional passing place at a location between Kilbowie Lodge and Tigh-a- Chaolais. • Additional passing places in the section of road from the site access to the junction with the U24 Glenshellach Road; • Additional road marking and signage to be installed for road safety issues. Details and location to be agreed with Roads; • Access at junction with public road to be constructed in accordance with Operational Services Drawing no SD08/004(Rev b) • No walls, fences, hedges etc greater than 1m in height will be permitted within 2m from the channel line of the public road. Visibility splays measuring 53m x 2.4m to be cleared and maintained; • A system of surface water drainage is required to prevent water passing onto the public road; • Parking and turning commensurate with the units is to be provided; • Refuse collection points to be provided at locations easily accessed and service by RCV. • Turning heads required within internal roads serving site. Page 5
Page 6
The upgrades to the public road and the existing private access track (within ownership control of the applicant) shall be completed within 6 months of the date this permission or prior to the occupation of any of the additional units/caravans/lodges hereby permitted at the site (whichever occurs the first). Reason: In the interests of road safety. 3. PP – Surface Water Drainage – Further detail required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753. Post development surface water runoff should be attenuated to pre- development amounts. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational within 6 months of the date of this permission or prior to the occupation of any of the additional units/caravans/lodges hereby permitted at the site (whichever occurs the first). Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk 4. PP – Landscaping Scheme and Biodiversity Enhancement Measures Within 3 months from the date of planning permission having been granted, scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping shall be 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) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; (ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; Details shall include tree protection measures to ensure that the Ancient Woodland which is located along the north western boundary of the site is afforded protection. (iii) A tree planting plan (no non native trees to be included) which shall include tree compensatory measures along the northern boundary of the site. (iv) Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; (v) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; (vi) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance; (vii) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. 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. Page 6
Page 7
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. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc.) shall be implemented in full within 6 months of the date that planning permission has been granted. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within 6 months of the date that planning permission has been granted. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity and in order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Note to Applicant: The applicant is advised to observe the content of the consultation response which has been received from the Councils Biodiversity Officer. 5. PP - Occupancy Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1, The units/caravans/lodges hereby approved shall be used for holiday occupancy only and shall not be used as a principal or main dwelling. The applicant shall maintain a register of occupancy to be made available to the planning authority upon request. Reason: In order to define the permitted occupancy having regard to the existing lawful use of the site, and in order to comply with the provisions of policies LDP SG HOU 4 and SG LDP TOUR 1 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. 6. There shall be no more than 104 tents/touring caravans/motorhomes, 60 units/caravans/lodges, 3 staff accommodation chalets and 6 pods; on the site at any time and no individual tent/touring caravan/motorhome shall remain on the site for a continuous period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register of tents/touring caravans/motorhomes using the site, showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained by the Site Operator and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to define the limits of the permission. 7. PP – Private Water Supply Within 6 months of the date of planning permission having been granted, an appraisal of the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the intended private water supply and the system required to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 7
Page 8
The appraisal shall be carried out by a qualified hydrologist and shall include a risk assessment having regard to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 which shall inform the design of the system by which a wholesome and sufficient water supply shall be provided and maintained. The appraisal shall also demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of any other supply in the vicinity of the development, or any other person utilising the same source or supply, shall not be compromised by the proposed development. The required water supply system shall be installed in accordance with the agreed specification and be operational within 6 months of the date of planning permission having been granted or prior to the occupation of any of the additional units/caravans/lodges hereby permitted at the site (whichever occurs the first). Reason: In the interests of public health and in order to ensure that an adequate private water supply in terms of both wholesomeness and sufficiency can be provided to meet the requirements of the proposed development and without compromising the interests of other users of the same or nearby private water supplies. Note to Applicant: Regulatory requirements for private water supplies should be discussed with the Council’s Environmental Health Officers in the first instance. 8. PP - Lighting Within 3 months of the date of planning permission having been granted full details of any external lighting to be used within the site 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 which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with the duly approved scheme. Reason: In order to avoid light pollution in the interest of amenity. Note to Applicant: All external lighting should be designed in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Light Energy Consumption” 2007, Annexes A and B. Site specific advice may be obtained by contacting the Council’s Environmental Health Officers. 9. Design Notwithstanding the provisions of condition 1, no further units/caravans/lodges shall be sited until full details of each type of unit/caravan/lodge to be sited have been submitted for the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 March 2025, submitted.) Page 8
Page 9
5. CALA MANAGEMENT LIMITED: VARIATION OF CONDITION 4 RELATIVE TO PLANNING PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE REFERENCE 23/00145/PP - AMENDMENT TO WORDING OF CONDITION 4 IN RELATION TO ROAD IMPROVEMENTS: LAND NORTH OF CARDROSS PRIMARY SCHOOL, BARRS ROAD, CARDROSS (KIRKTON FARM) (REF: 24/02193/PP) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1, which advised of late additional representations. Reference was also made to a late representation received from Councillor Luna Martin. A Section 42 application is an application for a new planning permission for a development with different conditions from those attached to a previous permission for that development. In determining such an application, the Planning Authority can only consider changes to the conditions on the previous permission. The principle of development is not under consideration and the permission 23/00145/PP for housing development on the site remains live. The Applicant has applied to vary Condition 4 to alter the approved roads access design drawing. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable and would accord with the policies of the development plan with the exception of LDP 2 Policy 38 where a minor departure to this policy is considered to be justified by the planning history and circumstances of the case. The revised road layout is considered by the Area Roads Manager to represent a proposal which would provide better road safety for all users than the currently approved layout. It was recommended that conditional planning permission be granted in accordance with Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report. Motion To agree to grant conditional planning permission in accordance with Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Liz McCabe. Amendment To agree to hold a site visit and discretionary pre-determination hearing. Moved by Councillor Paul Kennedy, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Hardie Councillor Blair Councillor Kennedy Councillor Brown Page 9
Page 10
Councillor Green Councillor Howard Councillor Kain Councillor McCabe Councillor Wallace The Motion was carried by 8 votes to 2 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Committee agreed to grant conditional planning permission in accordance with Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1987, subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PPP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development Plans and particulars of the matters specified in conditions 2,3,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,15,16 and 17; below shall be submitted by way of application(s) for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions in accordance with the timescales and other limitations in Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended. Thereafter the development shall be completed wholly in accordance with the details contained within the approved plans and particulars. Reason: To accord with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended. 2. Pursuant to Condition 1 – unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, no development shall commence in respect of any individual plot until plans and particulars of the site layout, design and external finishes of the development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. These details shall incorporate proposed finished floor levels relative to an identifiable fixed datum located outwith the application site. These levels shall be at least 0.15 metres above finished ground levels. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details which shall have regard to special needs access requirements to ensure that these are provided. Reason: To ensure that the development has a layout and design which is compatible with its surroundings and in accordance with Local Development Plan policy. 3. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of affordable housing that is in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Development Plan Policy and Supplementary Guidance on Affordable Housing has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall: a) Provide that a minimum of 25% of the approved dwellings are affordable homes; b) Define those dwellings that are to be used as affordable homes; Page 10
Page 11
c) Establish the timing of the provision of the affordable homes relative to the phasing of the development, which shall ensure that works on the last 25% of those approved dwellings that are not affordable homes are not commenced until the affordable homes have been completed for occupation; d) Establish the arrangements to ensure the affordability of the affordable homes for both initial and subsequent occupiers. The development shall be implemented and occupied thereafter in accordance with the duly approved scheme for affordable housing. Reason: To accord with the provisions of the development plan in respect of affordable housing provision. 4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Road Network Manager, no development shall commence unless and until the following improvements to Darleith Road have been provided: i) The provision of a suitable traffic calming scheme (give and take priority) and the provision of three new off-street car parking spaces between Barrs Terrace and Mill Road. A drawing showing details of these provisions shall be submitted for prior written approval of the Planning Authority. ii) Road improvement between Mill Road and the proposed development site entrance as identified on Drawing No. 22217-SK-35 Rev D – Darleith Road Upgrades Cala Alternative Option 3. This access road and footways, as defined on this approved drawing, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Area Roads Manager before any works are undertaken to commence development on the application site. iii) The provision of a passing place immediately to the north of the proposed development site entrance in order to accommodate large vehicles passing in opposite directions. iv) Upgrade of the existing lighting between Mill Road and the existing 30 mph speed restriction limit. Reason: To provide improvements, including suitable traffic calming measures, compensatory parking and a passing place for larger vehicles, in the interests of road safety and to ensure a safe connection from the A814 to the site. 5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Road Network Manager, no dwelling shall be occupied unless and until the existing 30 miles per hour speed restriction on Darleith Road has been extended and brought into effect to a location north of the Darleith Road access, the exact location to be agreed in consultation with the Road Network Manager. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 6. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until the following plans and particulars have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Road Network Manager. Thereafter, the schemes shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Such details shall incorporate: i) On the A814 Main Road, Cardross, a scheme to enhance the gateway features in both directions at the entrances into Cardross village to be fully implemented in accordance with these details prior to occupation of the first dwelling house. Page 11
Page 12
ii) On the A814 Main Road, Cardross, within the village envelope a scheme to enhance traffic calming to be fully implemented in accordance with these details prior to occupation of the first dwelling house. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 7. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until full details of the internal road layout within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development layout shall ensure that no more than 20 dwelling houses will be served from the east access, i.e. via Barrs Road. All other vehicular traffic will be required to access the development site from Darleith Road. The internal roads shall be constructed in accordance with the principles of Designing Streets. Reason: In the interests of road safety and good place making. 8. Pursuant to Condition 1 – Car parking provision shall be provided in accordance with the Argyll and Bute Council LDP 2 Policy 40 (a). Parking provision shall be constructed and made available for use prior to the first occupation to the dwelling(s) to which it relates and shall be maintained thereafter for the parking of vehicles. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 9. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development or ground breaking works shall commence until an archaeological field evaluation has been undertaken and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval, the results of which shall inform as necessary the layout of the development to be submitted for the purposes of the Approval of Matters Subject to Conditions. This archaeological field evaluation shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall consist of a trial trenching programme of a distributed sample of 8% of the full application area. The West of Scotland Archaeology Service shall be notified at least 14 days in advance of the evaluation in order to facilitate monitoring of the work evidence of which to be submitted along with the archaeological field evaluation as part of the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions submission. If archaeological remains on the site are confirmed, proposals for their preservation shall also be included. Reason: In order to protect archaeological resources. 10. For the avoidance of doubt the proposals hereby approved shall be served by public water and sewerage connections. Reason: The proposal has been assessed on this basis and the introduction of private connections would represent a further material consideration in the determination of this planning application. 11. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority: i) Details of the proposed cut-off ditch (or similar) to be located along the northern border of the site along with calculations demonstrating that this proposed mitigation measure will not exacerbate flooding elsewhere; Page 12
Page 13
ii) The existing flow pathway in the vicinity of the sewer line shall be maintained; iii) A detailed drainage assessment and layout; iv) Method Statement detailing surface water containment during construction. Reason: In order to ensure appropriate mitigation for flood risk. 12. Pursuant to Condition 1 – full details of the proposed SUDs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter the development shall commence in accordance with these details. These details shall include: i) Full details of the proposed design and appearance of the SUDs facility to be designed in accordance with CIRIA C753; ii) Detailed design calculations for this facility; iii) Details of the proposed drainage of the SUDs facility; iv) Details of the proposed maintenance regime and maintenance responsibilities for the SUDs facility. v) Soil information to be provided if infiltration SUDs are proposed. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. 13. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; iii) Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates. This shall include details of a secure boundary between the application site and the disused quarry on the south west corner of the site; iv) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/ shrub to be planted; v) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance. vi) The proposed landscape plan shall take account of the Design Recommendations (para.4.8) contained within the applicant’s supporting Landscaping Report dated June 2015 undertaken by Ann Nevett. In addition, in accordance with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3b, a Biodiversity Statement shall be submitted which demonstrates how the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity including nature networks so that they are in a demonstrably better state than without intervention. This should include details of future management and should be informed by best practice methods. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interests of amenity and to comply with Policy 3 of NPF 4. 14. No trees overhanging the site shall be lopped, topped, or felled other than in accordance with the details provided to satisfy the requirements of condition 13 above. Reason: In order to protect the trees overhanging the site in the interests of amenity. Page 13
Page 14
15. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until details for the provision and maintenance of proposed areas of communal open space and equipped play area(s) within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details shall comprise: i) A plan showing the location and extent of communal open space and equipped play areas; ii) Provision to satisfy the minimum standards set out in the Development Plan; 6sqm of equipped play space and 12sqm of informal open space per dwelling unit; iii) Specification of play equipment to be installed, including surface treatments and any means of enclosure, designed in accordance with the provisions of BS5696 (Play Equipment Intended for Permanent Installation Outdoors); iv) Proposals for the timing of the implementation of the play area(s) in relation to the phasing of development; v) A maintenance schedule for communal open spaces and equipped play areas in accordance with the provisions of BS5696 including details of on-going inspection, recording and procedures for detailing with defects. The communal open space and equipped play area(s) shall be provided in accordance with the duly approved details and shall be retained and maintained to the specified standards thereafter. Reason: In order to secure prevision of communal open space and equipped play areas within the development in accordance with the minimum standards set out in the Development Plan. 16. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until details for the arrangements for the storage, separation and collection of waste from the site, including provision for the safe pick-up by refuse collection vehicles, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the duly approved provision shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwellings which it is intended to serve. Reason: In order to ensure that satisfactory arrangements have been made for dealing with waste on the site in accordance with LDP2 Policy 63. 17. Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until a Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The provisions of this plan shall be adhered to during the construction period unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure the minimisation of waste generated during construction in accordance with policy LDP2 Policy 63. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 5 March 2025 and Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 18 March 2025, submitted) Councillor Paul Kennedy left the meeting at this point. 6. PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS Over the past 12 years a series of short training sessions or occasionally workshops/site visits have been delivered for all elected Members with an aim to improve knowledge of the planning system on a wide range of issues. Page 14
Page 15
A report seeking endorsement of the training programme from April 2025 to March 2026 was before the Committee for consideration. Decision The Committee: 1. agreed to continuing an ongoing programme of planning related training for Members of the PPSL Committee, and that it should be open to any other Members not currently involved in planning decision-making; and 2. endorsed the initial subject areas for training on the understanding that the programme may be varied to take account of any additional training requirements Members may wish to identify, along with any other particular training needs identified by officers as a consequence of matters emerging during the course of the year. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 5 March 2025, submitted) 7. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1992: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW A report advising that the review of scales for taxi fares and other charges had now concluded supporting a 10% increase, and that the fares have been fixed with effect from 22 April 2025, was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the report and that a further review of the taxi fares would take place within 18 months of 22 April 2025 as required in terms of Section 17 of the Act. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support, dated 19 March 2025, submitted.) 8. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRIES (a) UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 36 EARRAGHAIL RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT DECISION A report summarising the decision made by Scottish Ministers to refuse Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission for the Earraghail Renewable Energy Development was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 26 February 2025, submitted.) (b) UPDATE ON SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 36 CLACHAIG GLEN WIND FARM DECISION Page 15
Page 16
A report summarising the decision made by Scottish Minsters to grant Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission for Clachaig Glen Wind Farm was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the contents of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 26 February 2026, submitted.) Page 16
Page 17
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held ON A HYBRID BASIS IN THE MARRIAGE SUITE, HELENSBURGH AND LOMOND CIVIC CENTRE, 38 EAST CLYDE STREET, HELENSBURGH AND BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 9 APRIL 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Iain Jackson, Governance, Risk and Safety Manager Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader – Planning Emma Jane, Planning Officer Michael Hyde, Applicant’s Agent Claire Balneaves, Applicant’s Employee Raymond Kane, Traffic Development Officer – Consultee Helen McCallin, Local Biodiversity Officer – Consultee George Freeman, Chair of Garelochhead Residents Association - Supporter 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. LORNE THOMSON: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO VEHICLE PARKING/STORAGE, INCLUDING LAYING OF HARDCORE, ERECTION OF BOUNDARY WALL AND FORMATION OF ACCESS (PART- RETROSPECTIVE): LAND WEST OF BT TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GARELOCHHEAD (REF: 24/01249/PP) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, which was held on a hybrid basis. For the purposes of the sederunt Shona Barton, Clerk to the Committee today, read out the names of the Members of the Committee and asked them to confirm their attendance. In advance of the meeting today, interested parties confirmed they would make presentations to the Committee. Mrs Barton read out the names of those representatives and asked them to confirm their attendance. The Chair explained the hearing procedure that would be followed and invited the Planning Officer to present the case. PLANNING Page 17 Agenda Item 3b
Page 18
On behalf of the Head of Development and Economic Growth, Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader, gave the following presentation with the aid of power point slides. This presentation relates to application – reference 24/01249/PP - for the change of use of land to vehicle parking/storage including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part retrospective) at land west of BT telephone exchange, Garelochhead. Before I go into the main presentation, I would like to draw Members’ attention to supplementary report 2 which has been submitted to Members on Tuesday for consideration. In summary this report covers further points made by the Garelochhead Residents Association since the Committee last met and a further consultation response from the Roads Authority in relation to parking. In terms of the points raised by the Garlochhead Residents Association, these are in relation to biodiversity. It should be noted that the loss of biodiversity and trees is not the reason for recommending refusal. There are no relevant planning matters raised in the comments that affect the recommendation made by officers. In terms of the Roads comments, I would like to highlight that the parking solutions as set out by the roads officers are not deliverable as part of the application. The parking issues in the village come from a multiple of sources and not just the garage business owned by the applicant. This is a key point, as any departure from Local Development Plan policies must be due to demonstratable public benefit. The Applicant’s supporting information is not considered sufficient to warrant this departure. The recommendation continues to be a recommendation for refusal owing to this significant departure from the Local Development Plan. The application is before Committee as the Officer recommendation is contrary to the body of public support for the application. My presentation will now cover an overview of the proposal, the open space protection area designation, the history of the unauthorised works, the amenity value of the site before the unauthorised works took place, the landscaping proposals put forward by the applicant, the key policy issues and finally the alleged public benefit relating to alleviating parking issues in the village. SLIDE 3 - LOCATION PLAN OPEN SPACE PROTECTION AREA This is a part-retrospective application which seeks planning permission for a change of use of land from a greenfield site located within the OSPA to a vehicle storage yard. An OSPA is an Open Space Protection Area as designed by the Local Development Plan and is shown on the slide in the right-hand image outlined in blue. Locally this is known as Bendarroch Public Park and is a total of 8.19 hectares. The development site is within the Open Space Protection area and amounts to 0.2 hectares – this is 2.44% of the open space protection area. Members should also be aware that the applicant has another proposal for a residential development on the opposite side of the burn which amounts to 0.5 hectares of the OSPA which totals to 0.7 hectares 8.5% of the open space protection area. The OSPA can be considered in two Page 18
Page 19
parts with the southern part of the site – south of the B833 and area to the north of the B833. The area to the south has a distinct characteristic with recreational value on the far side of the burn and the views across the loch, the application site is a buffer to this main recreational area and forms a valuable amenity space in terms of setting for the village. This southern part of the OSPA totals 2.2 hectares and 0.7 hectares – the two proposed development area - is 31% of this southern part of the OSPA. When considering this cumulative impact, it is not considered to be minor part of the site, and the proposal serves to erode and fragment this OSPA. SLIDE 4 – LDP2 – APPLICANT’S OBJECTION TO OSPA As way of background the area, when the Council undertook the most recent round of consultation on the local development plan in 2019, the applicant objected to the open space designation and asked for the designation to be removed on the application site to accommodate a community building – Men’s shed - and for residential development on the far side of the river. The Applicant submitted a statement indicating that the remainder of the open space protection area within the control of the applicant would be enhanced. The Council made the argument that the open space had a longstanding recognition in local plans going back to the Dumbarton District Wide Plan 1999 and that the site should remain as open space. The Reporter from the Scottish Government examined the objection and did site inspection and stated in their conclusions: “Any development would fall to be considered under Policy 81 of the proposed plan. This would include appropriate consideration being given to mitigation through the provision or improvement of recreational facilities or greenspace elsewhere.” It was concluded that there is insufficient evidence to justify the removal of or part of the open space protection area. The Local Review Body have met and considered the application for the residential development and are in the process of seeking community benefit via enhancement of the remaining open space via a Section 75 agreement. The planning officers are not in support of the residential development due to the adverse impact on the open space protection area. In this application there has been very limited supporting evidence to support a departure from policy and there is no mechanism to address the parking issues – so there is no public benefit from this proposal which aligns with the Reporter’s assessment. SLIDE 5 START OF COMPLAINTS 2020 Members are aware that the works are unauthorised and subject to a live enforcement case. The works were notified to the Council in 2020, and an enforcement case was opened in relation to the unauthorised development. The complaint raised concerns about the effect on the scenic value of the area. Page 19
Page 20
The first set of images were taken in June 2020 when the tree removal was undertaken – Members should be aware that the tree removal did not require any consent and was not part of the investigation. SLIDE 6 – START OF COMPLAINTS 2020 The main concern initially was the pile of hardcore piled on the site but at this point the works did not amount to a change of use of land. The Applicant claims these works were to clear the site of Japanese Knotweed, but Members should note that the treatment for Knotweed involves injection of the plants and would not have required the removal of trees. So, it is considered that the site had been cleared with the intent to develop it and the hardcore arrived on site immediately after the tree clearance. SLIDE 7 HARDCORE – DEC 2020 It was later in March 2021 that complaints continued, when it was considered to be unauthorised works that were in breach of planning control. These photos show the hardcore laid by December 2020. SLIDE 8 – CONTAINERS MARCH 2021 The site then had containers placed on it and these resulted in further complaints. At this time the owner was asked to remove the containers and the containers were removed. SLIDE 9 - PORTACABINS SEPT 2021 However, by later in 2021 the containers were replaced with portacabins and portable toilets and vehicles. SLIDE 10 – CAR STORAGE Over time this changed to be mainly a car storage area, and this is when it was decided that enforcement action should be taken given the applicant was not actively resolving the breach and an application was not being encouraged given this type of use would not be supported by Local Development Plan policies. It is hoped that these series of images have served to illustrate the point that the applicant has had disregard for the planning process and any concerns about the impact of their action on the local area. SLIDE 11 - GREENFIELD SITE This section of the presentation now moves on to the adverse effects on the amenity of the area and I will go through before and after images to illustrate this point. This first set of images are ariel images showing the site before and after the works. It illustrates how the site is within the central area of open space and next to the McAulay Burn. It is part of the green network and is a greenfield site. SLIDE 12 – AMENITY VALUE FROM MAIN AREA OF OPEN SPACE Page 20
Page 21
Before the site was developed it was not frequently used by the public as there was no path network going through the site, but it offered amenity value at an important road junction as arriving/leaving Garelochhead on a main tourist route – Clyde Sea Circular Trail which is a circular route around the Rosneath Peninsula. This slide shows the site from the junction coming from the village, where the greenery enhanced this corner. SLIDE 13 – AMENITY VALUE FROM THE ROAD This is another before and after image. This is of the site in 2011 and then in 2022 from Google Streetview. It illustrates the value the site would have had in terms of being greenspace. It would have been a tranquil area to enjoy in comparison to the stark appearance of the site shown on the bottom image. SLIDE 14 – AMENITY VALUE FROM MAIN AREA OF OPEN SPACE This slide shows the site travelling from the other direction as you are travelling from the peninsula. SLIDE 15 – AMENITY VALUE FROM WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE These slides show the site from across the burn. This is the area of Open Space which is used frequently by the public with a network of paths running across the site. There is now a clear view from the path networks across to the road rather than looking on to a green area. In addition, the noise levels are likely to have increased as there is no buffer zone between the local paths and the road. SLIDE 16 – PROPOSED LANDSCAPING Whilst the landscaping proposals are welcomed and address some of the issues relation to wildlife connectivity by replacing some native woodland, the presence of greenery on this site was of important visual amenity value to the local area. The proposed change of use remains in significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. SLIDE 17 – OPEN SPACE PROTECTION AREA POLICY This part of the presentation now moves on to the key policies. One of the key policies that the proposal is contrary to is LPD2 Policy 81 which states that development will not be permitted unless it meets one of the exceptions listed in the policy. The proposal does not fit any of these exceptions. • a) It is not an ancillary use to the principal use of the site – this type of use might be a play park, or a new path or picnic benches, or a public car park for users of the open space. It is none of those types of developments. • a) The next part of a) allows for a very minor part of the site to be development and it would not affect the integrity of the site and its continued use or amenity value – as the previous slides illustrated it is not considered to be ‘very’ minor, and it also affects the integrity of the site and its amenity value. Page 21
Page 22
• The intent of this part of the policy it to allow very small-scale development such as essential infrastructure. This is not that type of development, it is an erosion and fragmentation of an open space without any justification. • Parts b, c and d of the policy are not relevant as these relate to loss of outdoor sports facilities, recreational facilities or sites for growing food. • In terms of part e) It has not been demonstrated that there is no loss of amenity value, and that alternative provision can be made available elsewhere. The proposal as explained in the presentation and report, actively devalues the amenity value of the greenspace and wider Open Space Protection Area contrary to the Policy. SLIDE 18 – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 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 reflect the character of an area; avoid greenfield sites where brownfield sites is available in close proximity; and 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. 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 for their business and why there are no available alternative brownfield sites available. In addition, the applicant does not adequately explain how the existing garage site within the village centre is insufficient to support the Applicant’s business operations, or how the additional storage space in this location would support the business. The policy clearly states the developer must demonstrate there are no suitable sites and show an operational need for the development. There is no such evidence or statement made by the applicant. 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. 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 the Policies 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. SLIDE 19 – NPF4 POLICY 9 AND POLICIES 01 AND 04 OF LDP2 The Members are also reminded of the greenfield protection policies where support must be given explicitly by other policies in the LDP for greenfield land to be released. As Page 22
Page 23
explained, there is no such support from LDP Policy 22 or 81 so it is also contrary to these policies. SLIDE 20 – APPLICANT’S AUTOPOINT GARAGE SITE Finally, I move on to the points raised by the supporters in terms of the expected public benefit. The Applicant has submitted a short statement in relation to the operation of their garage. Their garage is located within the centre of the village and is a long-established garage site. In the supporting statement, the Applicant has highlighted that the proposal would support the ongoing business operations. They said that prior to the use of the site as a parking/storage area for vehicles these vehicles where often parked on either at the neighbouring Gibson Hall car park or local roads near the garage. This creates highway safety problems and furthermore would annoy the residents. The Applicant claims that using the application site for the parking/storage of vehicles has alleviated all these problems. We contest this is the case and following slides will attempt to demonstrate this point. The Applicant sells both second hand cars and undertakes servicing and MOT tests. At any one time he says he can have between 10 and 15 cars for sale and be undertaking services for 10-15 services/MOTs a day. The Applicant claims there is very little onsite parking, but Members have witnessed on the site visit and via the photographs that there is car storage space at the rear of the site and, it is considered that through improved management of this area then this could be increased and be sufficient to run the business without negative impacts on the residents. SLIDE 21 – DISTANCE FROM GARAGE This image is to illustrate the distance of the garage from the application site. The Applicant states the site will be able to store cars for sale and also to park customer’s vehicles awaiting collection after being serviced. Customers therefore are being expected to walk 4-5mins to this site. This is a big ask for customers to walk this distance and there is not anything to prevent the Applicant from continuing his current practice of using the public streets to park cars awaiting collection, close to the garage. 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 problems in the village. However, the proposed greenfield development is to create a private vehicle storage yard for the use by the Applicant in association with their garage business located in the centre of the village. There is no public access or parking proposed for visitors to the open space. SLIDE 22 – PARKING ON OLD SCHOOL ROAD Page 23
Page 24
These images are taken from the officer’s site visit of old school road, and there are Google Streetview images from 2011 and 2021. SLIDE 23 – PARKING ON STATION ROAD These images are from Google Streetview images from 2009, 2011 and 2021. The parking issues associated with the Applicant’s business operations have persisted around the garage despite the application site being used for car storage (without permission). SLIDE 24 – REAR OF THE SITE These images show the rear of the garage site and the storage available for cars within the applicant’s site. SLIDE 25 - CLOSING SLIDE In conclusion this application presents no discernible wider public benefit to justify the departure from the Local Development Plan. The site is a prominent greenfield site and the proposed use would devalue the amenity open space, and be detrimental to the character of the area, along a tourist route where no justification has been made by the applicant to demonstrate there is no other site suitable for this use and has been the result of unauthorised works where no thought or planning had gone into the proposal. It is therefore recommended that this application is refused planning permission. APPLICANT On behalf of the Applicant, his Agent, Michael Hyde, gave the following presentation. Michael Hyde Good morning and thank you for providing this opportunity for me to speak on behalf of the applicant. As you know well, decisions taken in respect of planning applications are to be in the public interest and in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan … unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material planning considerations are those that are directly relevant to the proposed development and its potential impact on the surrounding area and community. In the current case there are considered to be two very relevant material planning considerations. The first of these is the resolution of a known highway issue. In 2019 the Community Planning Partnership (CPP) used a Place Standard tool to engage with residents in Argyll and Bute about how they feel about the places that they live and work. 42 of the responses received from residents of Garelochhead mentioned traffic and Page 24
Page 25
parking as a concern and this was therefore highlighted as a priority area for improvement. Some of the vehicles parked on the roads, or in the Gibson Hall car park, would be those associated with the applicant’s business, either vehicles for sale or vehicles belonging to customers. Approving the current application would directly address this issue. The Roads Officer submitted just yesterday a response to the application. He acknowledges that there is a significant parking issue in the village and that a contributing factor is that there are businesses with limited or no parking for staff or customers. He then however says, for reasons that are not fully understood, that the application proposal will not reduce on-street parking? It clearly will on the basis that it will provide 30 dedicated parking spaces for the applicant’s staff and customers, and also for vehicles awaiting sale/collection. The second material consideration is the strength of public support for the application. There have been 49 individual letters of support submitted, and just a single objection from a neighbour who does not appear to understand the basis of the application (it references the provision of parking for The Perch, a local café/restaurant). The letters of support, including from the Garelochhead Residents Association, all state that granting planning permission will help reduce on-street parking, and mention the amenity benefits of securing tree planting and the building of a stone boundary wall. The application is also fully supported by two of the three Local Ward Members, Councillors Mark Irvine and Maurice Steuart-Corry. Once material planning considerations have been identified the weight to be attached to them is then solely a matter of judgement for the decision-makers, in this case the Councillors who make up this PPSL. It has been fully acknowledged from the outset that the application proposal does not comply in every respect with the provisions of the Development Plan, in particular Policy 9 of NPF4 and Policy 81 of LDP2. Policy 81 however states that development proposals resulting in the loss of part of an OSPA will be permitted if they only involve a very minor part of the site and would not affect its integrity and continued existing use or amenity value. The application site was never able to be accessed by the public, it is bounded on two sides by a burn and on the other two sides by the public highway. It was covered by self- seeded trees and had been colonised by Japanese knotweed (all of which has now been removed). It also represents less than 2.5% of the total area of the OSPA so is a very minor part of the overall designation. Any conflicts with policy are not considered to be significant. If a majority of Councillors are therefore inclined to give more weight to the material considerations than the slight conflict with the provisions of the Development Plan planning permission should be able to be granted as a ‘minor departure’ from policy. This would be entirely acceptable and would not be a decision that would be able to be challenged. A grant of planning permission would clearly be in the public interest given the significant local support for the application proposal, from local residents, the Residents Association Page 25
Page 26
and Local Ward Members. There would also be significant benefits to the village, through the removal of the Applicant’s vehicles from the public highway, and the land will be able to be appropriately landscaped through the imposition of planning conditions relating to tree planting and the building of a roadside boundary wall. Thank you. Claire Balneaves With the aid of power point slides, the Applicant’s employee, Claire Balneaves, gave the following presentation: Background Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen, My name is Claire, I work for the Applicant and I am not used to public speaking so please bear with me. Here is a little background from our point of view being the applicants. We bought this ground in early 2019, back then it was an AREA FOR ACTION, it had been identified by the council as land designated to address specific needs and opportunities, focusing on growth, sustainability or community development. It had been neglected and a lot of local residents had concerns for the vandalism that was occurring and also the infestation of knotweed which extended to an acre of the ground with some sections 3m high. I don’t have a photo of the land from back then, but this one shows what the land was like. The community council had discussed this piece of land, he vandalism and the fly tipping on many occasions over the years. We tried to contact the planning department over the following year to ask advice on treatment and advise of our plan to remove the knotweed which covered nearly half of the land. Over the year none of our phone calls or emails were answered. With no contact from the planners, we contacted the Scottish forestry department who advised us if we wanted to remove the trees there was nothing preventing this as long as we were under the limits set per quarter. The trees were self-seeded and in very poor condition. Unfortunately, all the knotweed rhizomes had grown around the roots of the trees meaning we had to remove most of them to kill the knotweed. We have kept all the roots of the trees and the rhizomes on a separate section of the ground and have an ongoing treatment to make sure these never grow back. This slide shows some of the impact of Japanese Knotweed. We weren’t trying to damage this piece of ground, we were trying to help, we just wish the planning department had responded at this time so we could have shown them what needed improvement. Page 26
Page 27
Eventually the planning department did reply to our correspondence, we then had a discussion back and forth to see if there was anything we could use the ground for. On 2 occasions we had replies from Emma stating that she has discussed with Peter and Howard and the land maybe suitable for a house plot as this was more suitable in terms of the local development plan. We were encouraged to remove our application on the other side of the burn and submit one on this side even giving us a free go to resubmit for a house plot. Emails Attached This was still an Area for action with no mention from the planning dept about removal of the trees and suggesting we could submit a planning application is giving mixed messages. A bit about our business We have been trading in Garelochhead for 20 years employing a number of local people and supporting all local residents and businesses. We employ staff of 20 people and many more subcontractors in several forms. Our business is made up from all general car repairs, MOTs, servicing and car sales. We also run the local petrol station, where we try our best to keep prices lower than the surrounding towns. With the current climate surrounding garage repairs and a few local garages closing it is becoming uneconomic to run the garage without car sales, unfortunately this causes us a problem with space. When we keep our own sales cars in the boundary of the garage it then means all our day to day passing trade then ends up on the streets around the garage, as we don’t have the room. This was an ongoing problem for years with neighbours complaining about customers parking all over the village. We have taken a few pictures of cars under the garage control that are parked around the village. The is just a snapshot of one day, where we need to park now since we have been asked to stop using the ground. This just exacerbates the parking issues in the village and adds to the dangerous roads situation. So, when the trees were removed from the ground rather than this being an intentional act to use this for parking it was more an evolution of the business, which we found sorted all the complaints over night. The comments recently from the planning department and biodiversity officer seem to suggest this was a nice woodland previously. Unfortunately, I think they are new to the area and never visited it before. This ground was scrubland that was infested with knotweed that no one could use and was also dumping ground for old household appliances, which the residents committee will confirm. Moving forward, our plan if allowed, which we have trialled already, is using the ground as a collection and drop of area for the customers of the garage which worked really well, we generally have 20-40 cars passing through the garage on any one day so customers we’re leaving the car on the plot, we would pick it up from there repair it, then drop it back off. This saved the need to use any public spaces in the village. Page 27
Page 28
Due to the expansion of the Naval base, we are finding an influx of customers, which is good for the business and local area but also makes the local roads busier, hence why we need more parking in the village. If this application is refused, we will be left no option but to concentrate our business on car sales instead of servicing the local community as there is nowhere else in the village or surrounding area to operate from, without impacting on the residential parking. Without this parking area we are going to be forced to close to the public which will be a major blow to the village in all respects. The new planting we are proposing would increase the biodiversity of what was a previously degraded site and deliver a biodiversity net gain for the area as well as making the ground more ascetically pleasing when entering the village from that side. Points to consider Rather than being deliberate act to remove the trees, it was to control an invasive species, which no one in the planning department has mentioned. The area was an AFA, NOT AN OSPA until recently which was changed for an unknown reason and without consultation of the owner. This surely raises the question how can a piece of land owned by a private individual be reclassified without consultation? The previous team leader had considered a single house development a reasonable suggestion. Most of the local residents and users of the facilities within the village all seem to support the application, along with 3 local councillors. The new planting will be much better than what was there before. A massive biodiversity net gain. This will really help the local parking problems around the village and reduce the dangers of all the on-street parking. This also allows a family run business the chance to evolve in a very challenging environment. And lastly although we have the best intentions, when the planning department talk of enforcement action does that mean they would like me to stop the ongoing treatment of knotweed and let it grow back? Regarding replanting, nothing can be planted for the next few years while the treatment is still ongoing and any plan for this has to be discussed rather than the planning department’s heavy handed approach. If an enforcement notice is issued, we shall take legal representation to defend the point that the trees were removed years before this was an OSPA and no laws or permissions were broken by their removal, Surely common sense has to prevail in such that this was NOT an OSPA until recently. It will have such a detrimental effect to the business and local people if not allowed. Nobody used this parcel of ground before hand and it has no benefit to the community to be left as it is. Page 28
Page 29
SUPPORTERS George Freeman, Garelochhead Residents Association George Freeman gave the following presentation: 1. I am George Freeman, Chairperson of Garelochhead Residents Association. As there is currently no constituted Community Council operating within the village, our Association is the only constituted community group that speaks on behalf of the residents of Garelochhead. All residents over the age of 16 are members of our Association which was first constituted in 1986 - 39 years ago. 2. Our Association and many residents have had lengthy discussions on the two planning applications that have been submitted by Mr Thomson for two separate sites within, what is now classed as, Bendarroch Park Open Space Protection Area. 3. Until the 28th of February 2024 when the Council adopted the new Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2, this site was part of a much smaller Area For Action (AFA 3/7). It was only with the new Local Plan 2 that this site became part of the much larger Bendarroch Public Park Open Space Protection Area (OSPA). 4. Members of the PPSLC who attended the site visit this morning will have noted that the OSPA is clearly split into four distinct areas. The Bendarroch Park with football field and ASTRO Turf facility, the site next to the telephone exchange which is the subject of today’s hearing, the site at the bottom of Whistlefield Hill on the opposite side of the B872 which is a mess and is cluttered with large containers, portacabins, machinery, caravans and other industrial equipment, and the site on the B833 Rosneath Road which was the subject of a separate planning application from today’s applicant for a residential development which has recently been considered by three members of the PPSLC on a Local Review Body (LRB) which, I think it is safe to say, were happy for that application, which is on the same OSPA, to be approved subject to the appropriate conditions. 5. Of the four separate areas within the OSPA, the public have only ever had access to two of these areas. The Bendarroch Park with football field and ASTRO Turf facility, and the site on the B833 which the LRB members are clearly minded to approve development on, even although it is located within the same OSPA. That site on the B833 was part of the Area For Action and it is safe to say that the community resisted development of this site going back over 30 years prior to local government reorganisation to the days of Dumbarton District Council, when plans by the then owner to develop the site were rejected by Dumbarton District Council. Similar plans by the then owner were again rejected by Argyll & Bute Council Planning Officers over 20 years ago. 6. Council Planning Officers at Kilmory confirmed to me some time ago that the OSPA measures 8.19 hectares and the site for this application only equates to 0.2 hectares and as such, equates to only 2.44% of the OSPA. PPSLC members will be aware that Policy 81 on Open Space Protection Areas allows development of an OSPA where it only “involves a very minor part of the OSPA and would not affect its integrity and continued use or amenity value”. Surely the PPSLC will agree that at 2.44% of the OSPA, you cannot get a much more minor part of the OSPA. Page 29
Page 30
7. For a small rural community, the level of support for this application is exceptional. There has only been one late objection from a member of the community. Although the Council has recorded this objection as coming from an immediate neighbour, this is certainly not the case, I have measured it out and this sole objector lives half a mile away along the B833 and cannot be considered as an immediate neighbour to the site. 8. The Supplementary Report refers to the parking problems that have been highlighted but disappointingly, only refers to the section of the B872 between the Anchor Inn and Old School Road. It makes no mention of the extensive problems on Old School Road, Station Road and the lower end of Feorlin Way which are continually congested. I have photographs here that I took of these roads which clearly show that there is hardly a parking space to be had which is the norm across the centre of the village on most days. 9. A great deal has been made of the tree felling on the site with clear indications that it was unauthorised. I recently argued that the tree felling was NOT unauthorised and was included in the exemptions listed by Scottish Forestry in their publication Felling Permission – Application Guidance – Section 2 – Exemption 1, 2 and 3 and that the applicant had approval from Scottish Forestry for the felling of the trees. It is good to note that it is now confirmed in the Supplementary Report that the tree felling was NOT unauthorised and that no consent was required for the felling of the trees from the planning authority or from Scottish Forestry. 10. Questions have been raised about the availability of alternative suitable sites within the village. From my local knowledge and having lived within the village for well over 40 years, I can confirm that there are no other sites within the village where this development could take place. 11. Our Association has asked that this application be approved with conditions attached to control the use of the site. These should include, 1. That the boundary wall on the east side of the site be constructed within 3 months of the date of approval of the application, 2. That appropriate fast-growing trees, approved by Planning Officers, are planted along the east boundary of the site inside the boundary wall at a timescale approved by Planning Officers, 3. That a maximum of 30 vehicles are stored on site at any given time, 4. That no vehicles are stored on site for longer than six months, and 5. That a register is maintained al all vehicles stored on site giving the registration number of the vehicles and the dates when the individual vehicles arrived and were removed from the site which will ensure that the maximum of 30 vehicles on site and the maximum storage period of six months are not exceeded. 12. Comments have been made that the Council has not received complaints about the parking problems within the village. That is not the case. I have complained on many occasions in the past and have correspondence with Jim Smith who was until recently, the Head of Service. It was only because of these complaints that the Council eventually removed the double yellow lines in the long layby opposite the Anchor Inn to create additional car parking space for up to 10 vehicles. 13. Discussions a number of years ago with officers from the then Strathclyde Police Traffic Division ruled out the possibility of double yellow lines along both sides of the B872 through the centre of the village as the advice from the Traffic Division police officers was that this would create problems with vehicles speeding through the village. Page 30
Page 31
14. The Leader of the Council recently made a statement that the Council needs to start listening to our communities and delivering for them. This is an ideal opportunity where the Leader of the Council’s comments can be taken on board and that the PPSLC can deliver what the community clearly wants. Local Member Shona Barton, Governance Manager. read out the following written representation from Councillor Maurice Corry, who was unable to attend the hearing today: I would like to confirm my support for it as it would alleviate severe traffic congestion along the main street in Garelochhead. The planning application would provide more vehicle parking in the village and therefore making it safer on the main street particularly around the shops. I support the planning application as it could easily be granted as a minor departure from the provisions of Policy 81 which would produce benefits in removal of vehicles Parked from a public highway. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Brown asked Planning what would happen to the site if this application was not approved. Kirsty Sweeney advised that if the application was refused today the Applicant would have a right of appeal and it was usual to wait for that process to be complete before looking at any enforcement issue if the appeal was unsuccessful. She said they would look to serve an enforcement notice on the site to remove the hard core and put some tree planting back. Councillor Brown asked if the site would go back to the way it was before. Ms Sweeney said it would go back to open space. Councillor Wallace asked Planning how tree planting could be part of an enforcement condition if it was permissible to remove the trees in the first place. Ms Sweeney advised that in any enforcement case Planning can specify any actions that must be taken for a site. She explained that because the site previously had trees on it, they could be part of this request. She said that even though planning permission was not required to remove the trees they could still be part of the enforcement notice. Councillor Brown asked Planning to confirm when the site changed from being an AFA to an OSPA. Ms Sweeney advised that the proposed LDP was published in 2019 but the actual designation as an OSPA did not come into force until the Plan was adopted in 2024. Councillor Green asked Planning what the terms of the AFA were and what that meant for the LDP in force at that time. Ms Sweeney referred to the site being an Open Space designation in the Dumbarton District Plan and then an AFA in the 2015 LDP. She advised that the exact wording was to enhance, to provide recreation and enhance open space. It was not specified that any development would be supported. Councillor Wallace asked the Applicant how many cars they had parked on the street at the moment. Claire Balneaves said there were approximately 40 cars, 20 customer cars and 20 cars belonging to employees. Page 31
Page 32
Councillor Wallace asked the Roads Officer to comment on his consultee response which said that he did not believe approval of this application would have an impact on parking in the village. Raymond Kane said he believed there was already an existing parking issue in the village, and this had arisen not solely as a contributor of the cars associated with this facility but also the overall businesses and residential accommodation. Within the area of Garelochhead, due to its make-up, it did not offer a significant amount of off-street parking for cafes, shops and businesses and for people that wanted to visit. It was understood and recognised that the problem was a combination of all of these contributing factors. He said he did not believe the parking issue would be immediately resolved through the creation of a car park that would only be available to one organisation. He said the parking of the 40 cars was part of the problem but not the only problem and he did not believe this proposal would resolve all the issues. Councillor Wallace commented that he accepted that the proposal would not resolve all the issues. He asked the Roads Officer if he thought it would help alleviate the problem to some degree. Mr Kane said that to alleviate the problem would be to reduce the amount of cars that were permitted to park on the street. He said this could be done through various means, but the business could also do this. If the business has 40 cars, as they highlighted at the moment, in the surrounding streets, then they contributed to this problem. He said there would be nothing to say they would not then place 40 cars on the street and a further 40 cars at the proposed parking site. He said there was no means for Roads to limit or control how many cars that they then placed within the surrounding area. The creation of this car park would not necessarily remove the problem but could potentially increase the amount of cars attached to this facility. He advised that he did not believe that the creation of such a car park would resolve the issue. There were no guarantees and no conditions nor enforcement that could be placed on that unless a review of Garelochhead was taken in its entirety to place parking restrictions on the whole area. He said that would be a resolution but not an overnight resolution. Councillor Blair asked the Roads Officer if he had received any requests from the community to carry out a traffic management survey or any such management of traffic that has been a problem over the years. Mr Kane said that over the years he believed there had been engagement with his predecessors. At that time there was funding available to review the overall traffic calming features within Garelochhead which, be believed, was a means to slow traffic through the main thoroughfare. Personally, he said he has engaged with local community members that have requested this, but this came back to where funding was available and how it was believed this could be addressed. Means that have previously been addressed, are the installation of double yellow lines, the reaffirming and detailing of existing double yellow lines and the potential expansion of corner redeye would improve invisibility. Beyond that, there had not been a great deal of suggestion or involvement at present but that was not to say, they would not welcome, if funds were to become available, the installation of further traffic calming in Garelochhead. Councillor Blair asked the Roads Officer how many complaints were received annually regarding parking in Garelochhead. Mr Kane advised that from a review of recent communications, it was his understanding that they did not get registered complaints. They must be tracked and recorded through the Roads communications system for the data to be reviewed. He said that was not to say they were not aware of parking associated issues or movement issues that were a consequence of parking. He advised that without the creation of restrictions that could be enforced or on-street infrastructure to limit where people could park, there was little they could do at this point. Page 32
Page 33
Councillor Blair asked the Roads Officer if he had any discussions with Police Scotland regarding how many traffic accidents there have been. Mr Kane said that there was on record a very serious accident involving someone alighting from a bus and crossing the road. He said he was not aware of the detail of this but understood that it could have been due to poor practice of the pedestrian or varied contribution factors. He said that Police Scotland did not regularly engage regarding concerns over Garelochhead and associated vehicle movement issues within it. Councillor Blair asked if the Applicant was wanting to expand his business. Ms Balneaves said they were not looking to expand, they just wanted to cope with the business they had now. She said local garages were closing down all the time and there was an influx of business, but they were limited to how much business they could take in by the garage itself. Councillor Blair referred to the comment made by Roads that if demand increased this would lead to more cars and he sought and received confirmation from Ms Balneaves that she did not think that would happen. Councillor Blair referred to Mr Freeman saying he had been involved in the community for a long number of years. He also referred to the LDP process and asked if community groups have engaged with this process. Mr Freeman referred to the local development plans being advertised in the local press, and said this was something that was a total turn off for the public and that the public very seldom ever got involved in the local development plans as they did not think it affected them until a development was proposed next door to them and then, all of a sudden, there was an outcry as they were not aware of various policies that had been included within the LDP. He said he did not see the public normally getting involved in local development plans. Councillor Armour referred to the photos from 2009, 2011 and 2021 showing cars in the confines of the Applicant’s own business footprint and asked the Applicant how many cars were parked within the business footprint at the moment. Ms Balneaves said there were about 30 cars parked to the rear of the garage. She confirmed there was approximately another 40 on the streets, a mix of customer and staff vehicles. Councillor Armour asked the Roads Officer if a Traffic Regulation Order would solve the parking problem around the business. He suggested waiting restrictions to allow vehicles to only wait on that part of the street for 1 or 2 hours. He asked if that would solve that part of the problem. Mr Kane said he recognised that would be a reasonable consideration and a potential tool that could be used to resolve an issue. He advised that with every application they must be consistent and with other application sites where there were visibility issues or access issues the Applicant has made a request for a change and reduction in speed so they can achieve visibility. In doing so Roads then have to make an amendment or TRO to facilitate that development. He advised that Roads could not, and would not, do that as they had limited resources, and they could not support one scheme over another. He said that if they applied waiting restrictions which would necessitate a TRO, they would then be supporting this development through the creation of a TRO and they would then have to consistently apply that to every other application across the whole of Argyll and Bute. He said they did not have the resources to facilitate that. So consistently applying that across every application, if it cannot be achieved within the Applicant’s gift then Roads could not support it. Page 33
Page 34
Councillor Armour asked the Roads Officer if a TRO could be brought in, if this application was approved today, and if it did not sort the problem and there were just as many cars from the business on the street. Mr Kane said a TRO could be brought in and if it were successful, it could take somewhere between 12 and 18 months to be delivered. It would then be subject to the level of enforcement Roads had available. For somewhere like Garelochhead, which was not as central as somewhere like Helensburgh, there may not be wardens out there as regularly. He said a restriction was only as good as the enforcement and if people chose not to acknowledge these restrictions, then they could be flighted or ignored. He advised that it could be a solution but would not be an immediate solution if the proposal was accepted. Councillor Armour commented that if the potential for enforcement was there it could act as a deterrent. Mr Kane said that they would have to give consideration to residents as there was very limited on-street parking available to them. It may be objected to on the grounds that why should a resident be prevented from parking on the street outside their house when they had not done anything to create the current issue. He said that this could then create a displacement parking effect and move the problem to another area. He said that placing parking restrictions in residential areas were difficult to manage and was not something that Roads wholly promoted in Argyll and Bute. Councillor Armour commented that taking 40 cars off that street and putting in restrictions, would, to his mind, provide scope for any resident to be able to park within a reasonable distance from their home. Councillor Kain referred to Mr Kane advising that he would not be keen because the Applicant could just add another 40 cars to the environment so it would not make any difference. He asked Mr Kane if he would accept that allowing 40 cars to park on the application site would, at the moment, reduce the traffic issues. Mr Kane said he did not think it would as there were no guarantees. Councillor Kain commented that if there was an issue at the moment and 40 cars were removed from the environment that, by definition, would reduce the impact of traffic at this time. He said that in the future that might change but he suggested that if it did change it would indicate an addition to the economy of Garelochhead as more cars would be travelling there. It might create a traffic issue but, he asked Mr Kane if he would agree that it would add to the economy of Garelochhead. Mr Kane advised that if they had data that was gathered over 3, 6 or 12 months, that detailed the registrations of vehicles on the streets, and those vehicles were associated with the company’s business, they could then take a cross section of the over all volume of vehicles within the streets and identify those that were a contributing factor being the business, to remove these cars from the streets, this would create X amount of spaces. Or this would alleviate X amount of space. He said that what must be clear here was that these cars filled space within the carriageway; that no car had a right to park on the carriageway and Roads permitted cars to park on the carriageway. These spaces were not just for parking, they were to facilitate the safe movement of vehicles which allowed the safe movement of pedestrians and so on. He advised that if that data was there then he would comment that the removing of that factor would contribute to it. Mr Kane then referred to the question about the economy of Garelochhead. He advised that if removing the contributing factor, which was these cars, and that created space and allowed the safe movement of vehicles and then this space was further saturated at a later date, there was Page 34
Page 35
nothing to necessary align that to a growing economy. He said that could align to a change in business model to the operator whereby, instead of taking cars that could be turned over or changed over on a 1 day, 2 day, 3 day period, maybe change their business model to cars that required significantly more time and therefore greater return for them. He said it could also signify a change in practices in terms of residents and homeowners that previously parked one car further away because the existing area was saturated. He said he did not think you could necessarily align the re-saturation following a reduction to a growing economy. He advised that once the car park was created the only means of control thereafter would be to invest in a TRO or hard infrastructure to facilitate the safe movements of vehicles through Garelochhead. Councillor Kain asked the Applicant to confirm if the trees were removed to deal with Japanese Knotweed prior to the OSPA being in place. Ms Balneaves confirmed that when the trees started to be removed the site was an AFA. Councillor Brown asked the Applicant what difference had been made to the village of Garelochhead when those cars were off the road when the area was being used as car storage. Ms Balneaves advised that the feedback she had received from customers was that there was more space on the streets and that they could park on Station Road and Old School Road easier. Councillor Brown asked Planning the same question. Ms Sweeney advised that they did not have this evidence so could not answer that question. Mr Freeman advised that while the site was being used and cars were on it, it was quite clear to those in the community that there were more spaces on the roads around the centre of the village. When the cars were removed from the site the village went back to square one. He confirmed that he submitted complaints directly to the Head of Service about parking and it was only after some considerable time because of these complaints that it was agreed to remove the double yellow lines from the long layby opposite the Anchor Inn to allow parking there. He said he did not believe a TRO was legally amended but the signs were removed, and the double yellow lines were removed to try and help with some of the parking problems. He advised that the large layby could take about 10 vehicles. He said this came about because of complaints about parking in the centre of the village and that was only over the last 18 months. Councillor Green referred to it being mentioned a few times in term of proposals for the site originating before the OSPA was introduced and an AFA being in effect at the time. He referred to the Applicant clearing trees to facilitate the treatment of Japanese Knotweed, and sought clarification on how the laying down of hard core would provide recreation and enhanced open space. Mr Hyde advised that he did not think that was something they were attempting to argue at all. He said that it was the situation the Applicant found himself in, once he had cleared the land and removed the trees to deal with the Knotweed. Given the problems associated with the parking related to his business opportunities and given that this was a piece of land that he owned in the village, he thought he could finally sort the problem he was causing for the residents of the village. Councillor Green asked how this provided recreation and enhanced open space which was the criteria for the land at that time. Mr Hyde replied that he was not saying it did. Councillor Green referred to Mr Freeman stating that it was his view the OSPA was divided into 4 areas. He referred to the older aerial views of the site and commented that there was not a clear division of these areas. Page 35
Page 36
Mr Freeman explained that it was only from the ground that you could see the 4 distinct areas and he explained where these were and the makeup of each. Councillor Green referred to the aerial view shown on slide 11 of the Planning power point presentation and advised of seeing a road crossing an otherwise continuous area of woodland of differing densities and sought comment from Mr Freeman. Mr Freeman pointed out the Bendarroch Park at the top right, which was a standalone area. He also pointed out the area at the top left split by the B872 road which he said the Members would have seen at the site visit and was a disaster. He advised that the lower area, in his view was also separated with the lower large site outwith red line the area where the public made great use of for walking. He advised that within the red line that was the wooded area. Councillor Howard asked Mr Freeman if he would agree that the area being discussed today had never been a public access area. Mr Freeman confirmed that the public never had access to it. He said it was fenced and was fairly thick with Japanese Knotweed and scrubby thin trees. He said he could not recall anyone requiring access to it. He said the large area below the red line was the area that over the years the public have used daily. He said that was the site the Association and Community Council had spent years protecting and supporting. Councillor Blair referred to comments from the Reporter during the examination of LDP2 and asked Planning if the Reporter supported the removal of the designation of an OSPA for this area. Ms Sweeney confirmed the Reporter did not support the removal of this part from the OSPA following a representation made by the Applicant. Councillor Green referred to the criteria of an OSPA and asked if it had to be available to the public to walk around or could it serve another purpose. Ms Sweeney said that Planning Advice Note 65 on Planning and Open Space identified Amenity Greenspace as areas providing visual amenity or separating different buildings or land uses for environmental, visual or safety reasons, and provides justification for a planning authority to identify and safeguard open space for visual amenity value in its development plan. She added that the space did not need to be publicly owned and could also be privately owned. Councillor Green asked Planning when the first draft of LDP2 was put out. Ms Sweeney said she was not sure of the exact dates, but she believed it was the Spring of 2019 with the deadline for comments July 2019. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation that the Applicant purchased the land in January 2019. Councillor Armour referred to it being mentioned by the Applicant that they had been given a sort of ‘go for it’ to build a house on the site in 2022 or they were not told completely there was not a chance. He asked Planning why this was even considered if the first draft of the LDP was in 2019. Emma Jane said that she was the case officer dealing with that planning application for another part of the site. It was an application for a house and there were several reasons for refusing that application and one of them was that it was not tying in with the settlement pattern. It was suggested could an alternative location for that plan be Page 36
Page 37
presented to mitigate some of the reasons for refusal and the Applicant looked at that as a potential site which SEPA came back to say that land should not be developed as it was in the flood plain. Councillor Armour referred to the Applicant being encouraged in 2022 to have a free go. Ms Jane explained that the free go referred to when an application was submitted and withdrawn within a year, there was no need to pay the fee again. Councillor Armour asked why, if the area was going to be an OSPA, the Applicant was given that slight hope. Ms Jane advised that due to the application having several reasons for refusal, the Applicant was looking to mitigate some of these reasons for refusal, one being it did not fit in with the settlement pattern where they were proposing the house. Hence, they looked at this site as an alternative next to the BT Exchange as it fitted in with the settlement pattern. Councillor Green referred to Mr Freeman mentioning red squirrels and otters not being an issue and he asked him to elaborate on that. Mr Freeman advised that at the January meeting of the PPSL Committee a statement was made and recorded that there were red squirrels on the site. He said that he had checked the national website for recordings of red squirrel sitings and had looked at the wider area. He said that most people knew that red squirrels only started from Whistlefield up to Arrochar and into Argyll. He said there were a few on the Rosneath peninsula but looking at all the sightings over a 5 year period there had only been one at the south end of Garelochhead village and nowhere near this site. He said that confirmed to him that there had been no sightings in that period and so no history of red squirrels on that site, although a statement had been made to Committee that there were squirrels on the site. SUMMING UP Planning In reaching a decision on this application, Members are reminded of the requirements placed upon decision makers by Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to determine all planning applications in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. During the course of today’s hearing Members have heard arguments with opposing views from the anticipated benefits and the impacts of the proposal. The position detailed by planning officers in the report of handling dated 1st November 2024 essentially identifies the fundamental issues which precludes the proposal from being considered to be consistent with the Development Plan. The provisions of National Planning Framework Policy 9(b) set out that proposals on ‘greenfield’ sites “will not be supported unless the site has been allocated for development, or the proposal is explicitly supported by policies in the LDP”. In this instance the proposal is located within an area identified within the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2024 as an Open Space Protection Area, abbreviated to OSPA, wherein Policy 81 sets out a presumption against development except where one or more of the criteria is met. It is considered by officers that the proposal meets none of the criteria. Page 37
Page 38
The case set out by the applicant and the supporters today has sought to challenge this position, saying that the site is a minor part of the OSPA and had little amenity value. Also, it has been suggested that the biodiversity enhancement can only be achieved if the development is allowed. However, Members should note that Japanese Knotweed removal and new planting can happen without this development going ahead. Also, in relation to Policy 22, it has been suggested that there is sufficient community and economic benefit to a local business to allow a greenfield site to be developed. This evidence is anecdotal re the parking problem and that it will be alleviated from the provision of 30 dedicated spaces for this business in addition to the parking area to the rear of their business and that there are no alternative brownfield sites. There is no report prepared to evidence this. We have also heard new information not before officers about the need to diversify their business into car sales. The Roads Officer has provided a further consultation response and within the answers to Members today, has highlighted that the parking problems in the village come from various sources and there is no parking survey evidencing the issue arising from parking from the garage. They also explained the difficulties of placing a traffic order. There is no mechanism to secure that parking will not continue on the street and the applicant will use the application site. Members are reminded that the designation of the OSPA within the LDP is an established matter. In order to assist members in reaching their decision the following matters are highlighted: - Planning Advice Note 65 on Planning and Open Space identifies Amenity Greenspace as areas providing visual amenity or separating different buildings or land uses for environmental, visual or safety reasons, and provides justification for a planning authority to identify and safeguard open space for visual amenity value in its development plan. - The aim of Policy 81 is to protect open space as the loss or partial loss of such areas to development can unacceptably erode either their individual integrity and function or the integrity of our wider green and blue infrastructure. Any loss will require robust justification as once such spaces and facilities are lost to alternative built development their opportunity to provide their original or similar function are typically lost forever. - This site is considered to have visual amenity value intrinsic to the OSPA and the loss of this area fragments the OSPA and affects the overall setting of the main recreational area and the value the site. Even with boundary treatment as proposed by the applicant, it is not considered to be sufficient, as this is only mitigating impacts of the car storage and is not an added public benefit or provision of an alternative greenspace elsewhere. - Policy 22 requires a sequential approach to new business/industry sites, first looking at preferred location, then other brownfield locations within settlements and avoiding greenfield sites. The applicant is required to demonstrate that the approach has been taken into account to the satisfaction of the planning authority. This has not been satisfactorily demonstrated and no alternative site have been explored. Page 38
Page 39
- The applicant has highlighted that the proposal would support the ongoing business operations but the evidence they have submitted is considered to be insufficient to demonstrate that parking problems would be alleviated and there is no planning mechanism to secure this. The distance the garage site is located from the proposed car parking does not suggest it would be easily accessible for customers and the on-street parking is therefore likely to continue, particularly for parking cars following MOTs/Servicing. - Members should afford consideration to the fact the designation of the OSPA was challenged by the applicant during the consultation of the LDP. The reporter concluded following their site inspection, that “there was insufficient evidence to justify the removal of, or part of, the open space protection area and no modification was made. “ The application is accordingly recommended to members to be refused as development contrary to the provisions of the Local Development Plan, namely Policies 01, 04, 22 and 81 and also NPF4 Policies 9 and 26. Applicant Mr Hyde Mr Hyde advised that as the Planning Officer had said, planning applications had to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Anything relevant to planning and relevant to the proposed development could be considered to be a material consideration. Once there were material considerations in the balance, and in this case the material considerations were - resolving a known parking issue and the strength of public support for the application. It was within the gift of the Committee to decide how much weight to attach to those material considerations and if significant weight was attached to those material considerations which would outweigh the loss of what was a very minor part of the overall Open Space Protection Area, then planning permission was able to be granted. He added that the planning permission could be furthermore subject to the imposition of planning conditions which could then be strictly enforced and as well as for the management of the site conditions suggested by Mr George Freeman, could also relate to landscaping and boundary treatments. Consultees Roads Authority Raymond Kane pointed out that it had been highlighted throughout the meeting that the business currently operated with 40 cars on the street. He said the application was for the creation of 30 car parking spaces, so it would not completely alleviate all the on-street parking issues. He also referred to discussion around creating car parking restrictions and said this would not be an immediate resolution nor guaranteed either. He said it would not stop the business from saturating the streets in addition to the parking provision proposed. Local Biodiversity Officer Page 39
Page 40
Helen McCallin referred to comments about the scrubby woodland and advised that it was worth noting that was a really important biodiversity and valuable habitat to have. With regards to NPF4 Policy 1, she spoke about being in a nature crisis, and in a biodiversity crisis and a climate crisis. She said development should be enhancing biodiversity and restoring habitats and should be helping to strengthen and recreate these nature networks and connectivity of habitats. She advised that with the removal of the woodland that had sadly fragmented that habitat. She said that it should also be noted that regarding landscape design, there should be discussion about biodiversity enhancement and how to make the site better, and how to connect habitats better. She referred to the red squirrels, and said that looking at the NBN Atlas website, there were squirrels that had been recorded within the area up until last year and, she thought, even this year within a 2 km radius. She said there was potential for red squirrels to be either in that area or commuting through that area. She advised that NPF4 Policy 3 was also talking about restoring and enhancing and creating these nature networks that were needed to help tackle the biodiversity crisis. Supporters George Freeman referred to this being a small application compared to some of the larger applications that had been dealt with over the years. Thinking back to 20 years ago, he referred to the An Suidhe windfarm application which was recommended for refusal by the Planning Officer. He said that this application went before the full Council and was approved. He said that it then went to Public Inquiry where it was still approved and had now been up and running for a number of years. He said it was not unusual for the Committee to go against the planning recommendation. He said that the Planners had their job to do but consideration could be given to many other things. He said that what he was looking at here was what was best for the community. He advised that there was no doubt that common sense should prevail, and the community would benefit from this application being approved. He referred to what the Leader of the Council had said at a recent Council meeting about the need for the Council to be listening to their communities and delivering for them. He said this was an ideal opportunity. He said the Leader of the Council was right in what he had said and there was an opportunity here to deliver for the community given the overwhelming support for this, he said he believed it would be crazy other than to approve it. The Chair established from all parties present that they had received a fair hearing. The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at this point for lunch. The Committee reconvened at 1.30 pm with all those present as per the sederunt. DEBATE Before the debate commenced a copy of a Motion prepared by Councillor Howard was circulated to all those present in the room and online for consideration. Councillor Howard said she had put forward a Motion to approve this based on the community’s need and wish to have their problem of parking alleviated. She said she did not believe the area of land concerned was ever truly viable as anything other than what it was hopefully about to be. She said the new screening; the new wall would be better than what was there before. She said it would be much more attractive and a better aspect coming into the village from Arrochar. She said this was long overdue and would be of Page 40
Page 41
great benefit, not just to the village businesses, but to its residents as well. She said she just wanted to see the application approved and for the village to get the benefit of the efforts of this businessman to change the way the village was. Councillor Amanda Hampsey advised that when the time was appropriate, she would be quite happy to second that Motion. Councillor Blair said he had taken on board comments made and that he appreciated the concerns and issues raised. He referred to the OSPA and said that as a regulatory Committee, the Members had an obligation to look after things like OSPAs. He advised that he felt because of the unauthorised development the Committee should still be keen to protect the OSPA. He said he had taken on board the comments from the Roads Officer and the Biodiversity Officer. He commented that from experience elsewhere, it was quite clear that nature had the opportunity to reinvent itself on whatever sites that were left. He referred to comments made about the proposal having the full support of the community. He referred to the population of Garelochhead being 3,000 – 3,500 with 2 to 3% in support and asked if that really meant 97% were not. He said he thought there was an opportunity here for possibly the re-establishment of the Community Council. As very often in communities when an issue came up it galvanised support or rejection and that got people pulled together. He said having a Community Council in the area was a good opportunity for the community to have a proper discussion. He acknowledged that LDPs were not the most popular read but if there was an issue going on in the community that could act as a catalyst for the re-establishment of a Community Council. In that case, he said he would be quite happy to support a move through the normal procedures, ie, through amending the LDP assuming the whole community or 50% of the community agreed. He advised that taking on board everything that had been said he supported the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Green referred to point 6 of the Motion and said that he assumed that it had been checked for competency. He referred to point 6 - Biodiversity and Nature Networks – there is potential to secure compensatory planting etc. He said this was a view from the Planning Officers but been included in this Motion. He said he could not see any reference to any compensatory planting and enhanced landscaping and conditions associated with that. Councillor Howard said it was her intention that there could be conditions put on a lot of the bit that was not hard standing and that it could be replanted in various ways. Councillor Green asked Councillor Howard if she had these conditions. Councillor Howard advised that she had left it to Planning to make the conditions that would cover that. Councillor Green noted that Councillor Howard was moving that appropriate conditions and reasons be delegated to the Head of Development and Economic Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of PPSL Committee. Councillor Howard confirmed she was leaving it to the experts to make the conditions. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr Jackson that the Motion was competent. Ms Sweeney said the Motion was procedurally competent and it had been highlighted what was necessary to justify a departure from Policy. She advised that it was Planning Page 41
Page 42
opinion that there was not enough evidence for this application to be approved and to set aside the Plan on so little solid evidence or demonstratable public benefit would weaken the Policy and set up a bar for future OSPAs if Members were minded to approve. Councillor Green referred to point 7 of the Motion regarding the siting of red and grey squirrels across Scotland. It stated that there had only been one red squirrel sighting at Garelochhead and that was nowhere near the proposed development site. He said he was not confident of that as the Committee did hear from the Local Biodiversity Officer in terms of there being more than that. Additionally, it was not just in Garelochhhead, where even within Garelochhead there had been significantly more than 1 over several years, but also just outside Garelochhead where you would not necessarily expect to see them in the village itself but just outside where they could be commuting in. Councillor Howard advised that the squirrels reported were not just outside the village, they were on the Rosneath peninsula on the other side of the hill and considerably distant. Councillor Green said he had the map in front of him which contradicted that assertion. He said he was not happy with that part of the Motion either. He said that even if Councillor Howard was content with this Motion, there were problems within it. Councillor Howard said she had went on the basis of the reported sitings. She said she had never seen a grey squirrel let alone a red squirrel. Councillor Green referred to point 8 of the Motion which stated that this area was cleared of all trees and hardstanding installed and that was required for the treatment and removal of Japanese knotweed. He said there was some debate as to whether the clearing of trees was necessary for the clearing of Japanese Knotweed, and certainly the installation of hardstanding would not be required for the removal of the Japanese Knotweed. Councillor Howard said the trees had to be cleared from the site in order to get into the Japanese Knotweed. Councillor Green pointed out that the Motion said the hard standing was necessary for the removal of the Japanese Knotweed and he said he was not confident that was the case. Councillor Howard said that was a matter of opinion. Councillor Green then referred to further on in point 8 where it was mentioned that looking at the full extent of the OSPA the site equated to only around 2% of the total OSPA. He said that it was his view that did not convey the full story in terms of the setting around this particular site, and also the role that this site played in the overall OSPA. He said this was a very narrow corridor which linked the OSPA together. He said if you took account of the overall scale of the OSPA it was a small percentage of that but a very significant percentage in terms of effectively cutting the OSPA in half. He said he did not think the effect of that could be belittled or diminished. He said he thought it compromised the overall OSPA, particularly looking at the neighbouring developments which combined the sites both towards the shore and just upstream the other side of the river and they served to sever the OSPA at that point and provide a significant barrier to any movement of wildlife across there. Councillor Brown referred to being at the site visit and said she had previously been there for another matter. She noted that Councillor Green said and advised that there was main road there which cut through 2 sides of the OSPA which, in itself, prohibited the Page 42
Page 43
movement of wildlife across that road. She said the piece of land being looked at here was a very narrow bit, there was a hardstanding, and it had been used for car parking in the past while it was not allowed to be used as that. She said that for her, anything the Committee could do here with regard to the OSPA for the benefit of the community and the visual impact and climate change, surely had to be looked at on its own. She said that what they had seen this morning was a mess and it had been a mess for a number of years. She referred to the development on the other side of the road which was unauthorised in the OSPA and a separate case. She said that she did not propose to look at that part over there in conjunction with the part looked at this morning. She said there was the opportunity to create a proper biodiversity area around where the parked cars would be which would give the visual impact, the biodiversity and climate change impact and would take away car parking problems in the streets and roads around Garelochhead. She said this was an opportunity to do something positive and it would make the OSPA visually better. The OSPA as it was before in this area was never used because the people couldn’t and didn’t have access to it. She advised that you could not go onto the other side of the OSPA across the river because there was no bridge or walkway across there. She said the route was along the pavement further up the road to get into the other part of the OSPA. She said there was an opportunity to make the OSPA what it should be, a place of sanctuary, to make a difference in Garelochhead. She acknowledged that cars were going to be in the middle of it but said that surely with enough work between the Applicant, the planning conditions and biodiversity, it should be possible to make it the place what it should be, a place of outstanding beauty. Councillor Blair said he had a concern with the OSPA in the sense that different Committees of the Council were looking at different bits of the OSPA and to him that provided a conflict and that was a concern. He referred to comments made earlier by one of the community representatives that it was almost as if it was a fait accompli about determinations. He said the Members had to look at things as they were presented to the them. He said that his fear was that the community were missing a real opportunity to get together a new Community Council to discuss and develop and have dialogue with both the owner of the site and Planners and a collective response from Council in relation to other agencies in relation to the site and then make a request through the LDP process to remove some or all of the OSPA from the area. He advised that for him that was the kind of dialogue and discussion to have. He referred to the red squirrels and said they could cross over tarmac as well as woodland area. He referred to the aerial view of the original maps and the amount of greenery that was taken away, he said that from his experience in other areas, where nature had redeveloped itself, it was quite amazing the new species, etc that have come in. He advised that for him, while his view was still the same that this application should be refused, there was an opportunity for the community through dialogue and discussion and within a programme of development for that site involving all of the community, not just individuals within the resident association. He said the Committee had a statutory obligation to protect areas and that was why it said OSPA and that this should be taken seriously. Councillor Howard referred to community involvement and pointed out that 49 letters of support were received from this community of 3,000 which, she said, was a high percentage. She referred to the supermarket development in Helensburgh which was considered to be approved based on 59 people taking part in a community of 15,000. Their opinions were counted as adequate. She said she did not think it could be said that there was not a suggestion that the people of Garelochhead were supporting this. Councillor Armour referred to there being no Community Council and said if there was there would have been a representation from them. The fact that there was none meant Page 43
Page 44
there was no statutory body that could respond. However, there was, as former Councillor, Mr Freeman said, a Residents Association that was open to everyone over the age of 16 who was a resident in the village. Mr Freeman’s representation today was on behalf of the community, and he advised that it had certainly made him think. He said that he thought there was huge backing here in the community. He noted that there were only 49 responses but, as Councillor Howard said, the Committee have looked at applications with far fewer responses for far bigger applications. He said that he fully understood that it was against the OSPA, but the ground had been cleared and if it was possible, it would be good to get something that was in keeping with the area and replanted there. He referred to the road and said he could see serious problems there and that if this could lead to getting even 30 vehicles off the road this could solve a big part of the problem. He said he did think that some sort of TRO would need to be looked at so the garage did not double the number of cars that they have now. He said he felt there needed to be some sort of regulatory order but that would be for another day. He advised that he had come round from supporting the recommendation in the report to certainly considering changing his mind on that. Councillor Kain said that he would be inclined to support Councillor Howard’s Motion. He referred to talk about biodiversity and open spaces and advised that the reality would be there would be even more open spaces in Argyll and Bute if there was not an improvement in economic activity. He said that Officers advised in a report last year that the population would decline by 2%. He said that he saw any activity that would help improve the economic activity and retain populations being of benefit over and above alleviating to some degree a traffic issue that was there at the moment. He said he would be for this and protecting the species of homo sapiens that were still in decline in Argyll and Bute. Councillor Daniel Hampsey said he thought that Councillor Kain had made some relevant points and likewise to Councillor Armour, he found himself in the initial position of supporting the recommendation but after looking at things and the support of the community he would be happy to support Councillor Howard’s Motion. Councillor Wallace said he would be keen to find a way to approve this application. He said he thought the community benefit was clear. The village would benefit from having the cars off the street. He appreciated that there was a wider problem but thought that this would be an important first step, so he was certainly keen to find a way to approve it. Councillor Green said he would be quite content to move the recommendation from Officers. He said he thought there were some flaws with the Motion. He said he could see the development having a significant impact on the OSPA. He said the site should not be looked at in terms of what was there now but what it was prior to the clearance back in 2018. Looking at how you can make the site better than at the moment, better in terms of visual amenity in term of ecology. He said he did not believe any mitigation proposed in terms of use as storage and parking area could get any way near the benefits which were there with the original vegetation on the site. He said he was quite happy to move the recommendation from Officers. Motion The PPSLC: 1. Notes the contents of the report of handling relating to the above Planning Application, and the concerns raised by Planning Officers that they consider the application Page 44
Page 45
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); NPF4 Policy 26(d) (Business Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). 2. Notes that many of the representations received from the community highlight that the proposed development will have a significant beneficial impact on the community by helping to reduce the ongoing parking problems across the centre of the village. 3. Notes the overwhelming community support for this application with 42 local representations supporting the application and two of the ward councillors also confirming their full support for the application. Full support for the application has also been submitted by Garelochhead Residents Association (GRA) on behalf of the community. 4. Notes the contents of the ROAVR Group report on Protected Species and Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment (PRA) which confirms that subject to the completion of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to ensure suitable mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant ecological impact on otter and bat species in the area. 5. Agrees that, given the varied design, setting, materials and location of existing buildings within the vicinity that the proposed development would not be out of keeping with the established development pattern in this part of Garelochhead, and would therefore not have a detrimental impact on the setting and character of the area. 6. Notes the contents of the report of handling which confirms the following in regard to the other matters considered by the Planners. Design and Setting – the proposed low stone boundary wall would provide a uniform boundary treatment to the road improving the overall street scene and thoroughfare into Garelochhead centre and along with the proposed planting will be an improvement of the current condition of the land and help lessen the existing visual harm of the vehicle storage yard in line with much of the design principles set out within NFP4 Policy 14, LDP2 policies 05 and 10. Biodiversity and Nature Networks – there is 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 and the conflict with Biodiversity and Woodland policies is not considered a determining factor in the assessment of this application. Residential Amenity – no concerns regarding residential disturbance through intensification of use. Road Safety and Parking – 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 are stored or dismantled on site in the interest of residential and visual amenity and environmental protection. Flooding – conflict with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 55 could be minimised through drainage, water management and construction secured by planning condition. Page 45
Page 46
7. Notes that the Saving Scotland's Red Squirrels - Sightings of Red and Grey Squirrels across Scotland website confirms that over the past 4/5 years, there has only been ONE red squirrel sighting at Garelochhead and that was nowhere near the proposed development site. No sightings of red squirrels have been recorded on or near the OSPA. 8. LDP2 Policy 81 Open Space Protection Area – this location was only designated as part of an OSPA in LDP2 which was adopted by the Council on 24 February 2024, the whole OSPA covers an area of 8.19 hectares and the proposed development site is only 0.2 hectares which equates to only 2.44% of the total OSPA. This area was cleared of all trees and hardstanding installed by the applicant between June 2018, when the site comprised of dense woodland and 2021, prior to the designation as an OSPA, and was required for the treatment and removal of Japanese knotweed and trees that were of poor quality and self -seeded. It is noted that the felling of the trees was included in the exemptions listed by Scottish Forestry in their publication Felling Permission - Application Guidance – Section 2 - Exemption 1, 2 and 3 and that the applicant had approval from Scottish Forestry for the felling of the trees. The Planners are of the view that the development will affect the overall integrity of the OSPA and the amenity value of this site and therefore in not consistent with parts (a) and (e) of LDP2 Policy 81. However, due to the limited reduction in the size of the overall OSPA, due to this small area being removed, there will be little effect on the overall integrity of the OSPA and amenity value of this site that would allow an approval of the application as consistent with part (a) of LDP2 Policy 81. Part (e) of this Policy requires that there is no loss of amenity value and that an alternative provision of equal benefit is provided. I have provided a view above on the loss of amenity value and whilst no information has been provided in regard to and alternative provision I consider that the community and economic benefit that will result as detailed below, if this application is approved is sufficient to allow the application to be approved as a departure from this part of the Policy. 9. LDP2 Policy 22 part B(i) (Economic Development) – this policy requires the applicant to demonstrate that there is no alternative suitable site and I do not think he has done so, however, it has been suggested that there is no suitable site in Garelochhead and I am prepared to accept this and the Communities view on that. As mentioned above the Community overwhelmingly support this application and taking into account that the proposal will provide additional support for the largest employer within Garelochhead and as such very significant direct and indirect economic benefits for this small rural community and coupled with comments from the Planners as referenced under the heading Design and Setting above and the use of the land as a storage facility for vehicles that would otherwise be causing congestion in the village provides a justification for the application to be approved as a departure from this Policy and NFP4 Policy 26(d) (Business and Industry). 10. NFP4 Policy 9 – the site is owned by the applicant and whilst it has not been specifically allocated or explicitly supported by policies, I consider that for the reasons stated in this motion about community and economic benefit, the support of the Page 46
Page 47
Community, the other information on design and setting and the small area that will be lost from the overall OSPA that the application can be approved as a departure from this Policy. 11. LDP Policies 2 and 4 – On the basis of my comments above and other information contained in the report of handling, I consider that this development is compatible with the surrounding land use, it makes efficient use of derelict land and doesn’t devalue the amenity open space and as such can be approved as a minor departure from these policies. I therefore move that the development can be approved subject to the addition of appropriate conditions and reasons being delegated to the Head of Development and Economic Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee. Moved by Councillor Fiona Howard, seconded by Councillor Amanda Hampsey. Amendment To agree to the Officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission for the reasons appended to the report of handling. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Gordon Blair. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Blair Councillor Brown Councillor Green Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Hardie Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Howard Councillor Kain Councillor Wallace The Motion to approve was carried by 7 votes to 3. DECISION 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. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 November 2025 and Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 9 January 2025 and supplementary report number 2 dated 7 April 2025, submitted) Page 47
Page 48
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 49
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 24/01459/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Ms Erin Murphy Proposal: Erection of a Fence and Use of Land as the Curtilage of a Shop Unit Site Address: Land to the Rear of 19 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of 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 • Erection of a fence • Use of land as the curtilage of a shop unit including seating area for staff, the provision of refuse and recycling storage and retail display • Land drainage works (ii) Other specified operations • Removal of vegetation (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and informative notes set out below. Page 49 Agenda Item 4
Page 50
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (C) CONSULTATIONS: None (D) HISTORY: Planning Permission (ref: 06/01868/COU) granted on 06.02.2007 for alterations and change of use of the shop unit (Class 1) at 19 East Princes Street into an amusement arcade (Sui Generis). Listed Building Consent (ref: 06/01869/LIB) granted on 16.03.2007 for alterations to convert the shop unit (Class 1) into an amusement arcade (Sui Generis). Non Material Amendment (ref: 07/01283/NMA) to Planning Permission 06/01868/COU granted on 01.08.2007 for revision to window pane proportions. Planning Permission (ref: 13/02562/PP) and Listed Building Consent (ref: 13/02563/LIB) granted on 06.01.2014 for the refurbishment of 19-25 East Princes Street (Duncan’s Halls) including the installation of new cast iron guttering and downpipes. Non Material Amendment (ref: 14/02221/NMA) to Planning Permission 13/02562/PP granted on 17.09.2014 to incorporate harling of chimney. Planning Permission (ref: 21/00110/PP) granted on 25.11.2024 for the change of use of the shop unit at 19 East Princes Street to form a wine bar including the formation of an external seating area adjacent to the property frontage and the installation of a front canopy. Work commenced on the implementation of this permission at the end of February 2025. Listed Building Consent (ref: 21/00119/LIB) granted on 26.11.2024 for internal and external alterations of the shop unit at 19 East Princes Street to create a wine bar including the removal and replacement of internal partitions and the display of signage. Work commenced on the implementation of this consent at the end of February 2025. Advertisement Consent (ref: 21/00120/ADV) granted on 19.05.2021 for the display of non-illuminated fascia signage at 19 East Princes Street. (E) PUBLICITY: Subject of Neighbour Notification (closing date 10.10.2024) and advertised as development in a Conservation Area and affecting the setting of a Listed Building (closing date: 25.10.2024). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: Objections to the application have been received from the following seventeen sources: Juliane Radwanski, Lowes House, Luncarty, Perth (received on 07.10.2024) Kyrie Dickson, 18 Partickhill Road, Glasgow (received on 08.10.2024) Page 50
Page 51
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Charlotte Morton, Flat 3/1, 21 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 09.10.2024) Lorna Bryden, Flat 2, Glenhead Ballochgoy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 09.10.2024) Chris Radwanski, Lowes House, Luncarty, Perth (received on 13.10.2024) Richard Sims, 19A Craigmore Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 13.10.2024) Mark Anthony Carrigan, Flat 4/1, 21 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 15.10.2024) Edward Clack, Flat 2, 23 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 21.10.2024) Robin Patrick, 32 Crichton Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 21.10.2024) Aldo Zavaroni, 13 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 22.10.2024) Margaret Zavaroni, 19A Craigmore Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 22.10.2024) Susan Grasekamp, Flat 4/2, 21 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) David Knowles, Flat 3, 23 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) Helen Knowles, Flat 3, 23 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) Mr Derek Morton, 2 Ceolwulph Close, Walkworth, Northumberland (received on 23.10.2024) Ms Monika Jedruch, Flat 3/2, 21 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Ms Pauline Bosco, 14 Glen Lyon Walk, Motherwell (received on 25.10.2024) i. It is contended that there is a lack of clarity regarding the ownership status of the plot of land for which Planning Permission is being sought. By using the postcode for No.19 East Princes Street, the delineation of the land to the rear is not shown in the Ordnance Survey-based land register from 1981 as presumably it has not yet been populated from the General Register of Sasines. A number of neighbours have applied to the administrators of the latter register and were awaiting replies that would only have been received after the expiry of the date for comments to be submitted for this planning application. As such, there is no proper knowledge regarding what happened to the plot of land that was once run by The Palace Cinema Co. Ltd. i.e. whether it was purchased by them, leased or sold, etc. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. ii. It is contended that the applicant does not own the land to the rear of No.19 East Princes Street for which Planning Permission is being sought. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. iii. It is contended that the applicant has no more rights to the use of land to the rear of No.19 East Princes Street than the residents do. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. Page 51
Page 52
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL iv. It is contended that the property at No.19 East Princes Street does not enjoy exclusive access to the land to the rear, given that there are several entrances to this area of ground. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. v. It is contended that the land to the rear of No. 19 East Princes Street has been used by residents of the upper floor residential properties in Nos. 21 and 23 East Princes Street. Mention has been made of the following: ▪ The space has been used for “decades” as a valuable communal space. It has hosted family get-togethers and barbeques and has also offered the room to perform DIY tasks that can't be carried out indoors ▪ The proposed plans will result in the loss of a valuable community asset which is essential for the health, wellbeing, and social cohesion of residents and their families ▪ It is a green space which provides access to peaceful natural surroundings and where the outdoors can be enjoyed ▪ It is very clearly a garden for those living in the flats and is the only outdoor space to get any kind of fresh air without having to go and stand on the public street ▪ This is the only safe place for my daughter to play when we are visiting my Mum One of the objectors, Susan Grasekamp, submitted two e-mails on 25th October 2024 that contained photographs of people sitting at tables and chairs on part of the rear area and one of these photographs is dated 25th July 2021. Comment: These comments are noted although there is a lack of definitive evidence on the extent to which the land within the application site has been used in association with the residential flats in the upper floors. vi. Whilst there is an acknowledgement that the owners of Gather have worked to create a high-end food & drink offering for Bute residents and visitors, the proposal to utilise the entire curtilage is both excessive and unnecessary. Comment: This comment is noted and the issue of the scale of the proposal is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. vii. It was understood that the footway adjoining the frontage of No. 19 East Princes Street was to be developed and no objections were raised when the applicant applied for seating in this location. This is very different from the current application that seeks to deny access altogether for all concerned residents. Comment: This comment is noted and the issue of access is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. viii. With the entire garden being proposed to be fenced off from residents and used as a commercial space, concern is expressed that the negligible Page 52
Page 53
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL concreted area proposed for use by residents is neither proportionate to the number of potential users nor large enough to be practical or suitable for basic domestic or recreational use Comment: This comment is noted although there is a lack of definitive evidence on the extent to which the land within the application site has been used in association with the residential flats in the upper floors. ix. The title deeds of properties at Nos. 21/23 specifically indicate “enjoyment of common areas” and garden/outhouses of 21/23 should not have any reduction “in enjoyment” through changes of 21/23/cinema entrance or surrounding areas proposed in Planning applications. Comment: This comment is noted but the contents of Title Deeds do not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. x. The main building has been used and lived in by the Zavaroni family for decades and some of that history should be preserved. Comment: This comment is noted but it does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xi. The garden shed that the applicant bought from a previous resident shows that the area has been used as a garden. Comment: This comment is noted but it does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xii. One of the objectors has stated that they are unaware of any maintenance to the land being carried out by the applicant. Comment: This comment is noted but it does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xiii. The potential of damage to the residents’ small close by a heavier volume of foot traffic; the noise at unsociable hours; and the impact on the general safety of the residents would be unacceptable. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xiv. The applicant has left debris and hazardous materials in this land from their renovations on their commercial properties. Damage has been done to the building during these works. No safety signs or any safety barriers have been erected during the applicant’s renovations to date. Comment: This comment is noted but these matters do not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xv. It is contended that there are ongoing issues of damage to original close features, outside walls and slabbed paths, with several of these still awaiting proper repair. This raises the concern of how the council would ensure the ongoing careful maintenance of, and respect towards, the integrity and safety of the building from the applicants. Page 53
Page 54
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Comment: This comment is noted but these matters do not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xvi. Concern is expressed that a general lack of communication and consideration by the applicant for the residents’ welfare and safety has been apparent. Comment: This comment is noted but these matters do not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xvii. Concern is expressed that the proposal would have an Impact on the appearance of a Listed Building and the Conservation Area. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xviii. The proposed plans may impact the Listed Building through the removal of trees and shrubbery from the land to the rear of the property. The rear of the garden is frequently water-logged and the vegetation currently there may serve to reduce said flooding. It is considered that, should permission be granted, a thorough investigation of how this area would be impacted must be done in order to protect the buildings Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xix. Concern is expressed regarding the impact of the proposal on the environment, including frogs/toads, newts, deer and birds. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xx. There is concern that the proposal would generate traffic that would have an impact on highway safety such that the adequacy of parking, loading, etc. was brought into question. Comment: On the basis that the proposed use of the land in question would be ancillary to existing commercial premises, it is not considered that there would be an intensification in the use of the public road network in this part of East Princes Street. xxi. Currently, the plans do not include the use of the land in question as public space (e.g. outdoor seating for the bistro) but, should permission be granted for the use of the full curtilage, concern is expressed that this may change over time – particularly if the land can eventually be 'claimed' according to the 10-year rule. This could result in the land being used for whatever commercial purposes the owners (current or future) deem fit, potentially disregarding the building's heritage, with aesthetic and structural changes out of character with the surrounding area. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xxii. The commercial property changes that are proposed by the application are not in line with the proximity of residential property in the same building. It is considered that there is a lack of definition as to the nature of the proposals and there needs to be more clarity and assurances that the area will not be used as a customer access area. Page 54
Page 55
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xxiii. Concern is expressed that the use of the communal area to the rear by customers of the wine bar would be unsafe, a nuisance and lead to possible damage to the building. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xxiv. It is considered that the proposed development would be a constant nuisance to residents and their current enjoyment of the adjacent garden and outhouses. Given the operating hours of the proposed commercial venture, there would be a massive loss of amenity in terms of noise disturbance to the rear of the tenement at 21/23 East Princes Street. This would be exacerbated in those properties that have single-glazed windows as a result of the Listed status of the main building. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xxv. Concern is expressed that the use of the land to the rear of No. 19 as an extension to the cafe/Deli would significantly increase the consequential build-up of waste on a daily basis and would result in odours that would have a detrimental impact on adjacent residents. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. xxvi. Concern is expressed that changing the garden into an area for commercial purposes could be detrimental to both property values and home insurance costs for residents. Comment: This comment is noted but these matters do not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. xxvii. Concern is expressed that there would be no access for any maintenance or service access to the external walls of the flats. Comment: This comment is noted but this matter does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. Access to the land to the rear of No. 19 for the purposes of carrying out work to the exterior of the building above the ground floor unit would be a civil matter between the parties concerned. xxviii. The owners of flats have unanimously agreed upon improving the entire garden space at their own cost should the current proposal be stopped and the curtilage is not given to the Gather Deli to use in its entirety. Moving forward, they then hope to invoke the 10 year-rule to make this a permanent communal space for all residents to enjoy. Comment: This comment is noted but the Planning Authority is in the position of requiring to determine the current application. Any application by others in the future would be assessed accordingly. Support for the application has been received from the following thirty-seven sources: Page 55
Page 56
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Elizabeth Wilcock, 10 Ladeside Place, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 22.10.2024) Miss Imogen Holland, Flat 4, 23 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) Ms Maria Przyborowska, Flat 3/2, 3 Bishop Terrace Brae, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) Mr Dmytro Konstantinov, Flat 3/2, 3 Bishop Terrace Brae, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) Gail Holland, 1 Eastlands Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) Holly Reid, 9 Creek Drive, Port Bannatyne, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) James Holland, 1 Eastlands Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 23.10.2024) Ms Lorna Duncan, 16 Bridge Park, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mr Matthew Grandison, Flat 4, 23 East Princes Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mrs Rachel Sleeth, 7 Bishop Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mr Peter McDonald, 6 Crichton Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mr Scott McDonald, 1 Westlands Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Miss Anna McNeil, 2 Arran View, Serpentine Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mrs Caroline Jane Speirs, 61 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mrs Fiona McNeil, 2 Arran View, Serpentine Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mr Stuart Agnew, 2 Arran View, Serpentine Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Dorothy McDonald, 6 Crichton Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 24.10.2024) Mr Matthew Thom, 47 Gairn Road, Aberdeen (received on 24.10.2024) Mrs Elma Fisher, 1 Argyle Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mr David Murphy, Flat 2/1, 12 Argyle Street, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mr John Murphy, 9 Mountstuart Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mrs Anna Mccomb, 18 Academy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mr Alex Sleeth, 7 Bishop Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) James Herbert, 23 Beechmount Park, Edinburgh (received on 25.10.2024) Mr Ross Jamieson, South Park Lodge, Ascog, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mr John Blue, 8 Craignethan, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mr Chris Robb, 10C Ardbeg Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mrs Lyndsay Jamieson, South Lodge, Balmory Road, Ascog, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Miss Evie Paterson, 44 Lismore Place, Glasgow (received on 25.10.2024) Miss Georgie Grace, Flat 1/1, 12 Argyle Street, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Mrs Stephanie Paterson, 44 Lismore Place, Newton Mearns, Glasgow (received on 25.10.2024) Mr Nathan Herbert, 4 Bellevue Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Ms Costandia Costi, 22 Northbourne House, London (received on 25.10.2024) Mr Duncan Gordon, 46 Tolsford Road, London (received on 25.10.2024) Miss Kat Herbert, 23 Beechmount Park, Edinburgh (received on 25.10.2024) Page 56
Page 57
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Mrs Leigha Siegmeier, 1 Argyle Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Miss Linda Macrae, 54 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 25.10.2024) Miss Sara Goss, The Boat House, 15 Battery Place, Rothesay, Isle of Bute (received on 04.11.2024) i. In terms of the use of the land to the rear of No. 19 East Princes Street, a comment has been received that “little to no one (uses) the garden space” and the occupiers of a property on Bishop Terrace Brae that looks over the site contend that they have never seen anyone making use of the land in the last three-and-a-half years. A person that delivers goods to the Gather Deli a few times per week states that they have never once witnessed anyone using the land, apart from the staff working in the area. Comment: These comments are noted although there is a lack of definitive evidence on the extent to which the land within the application site has been used in association with the residential flats in the upper floors. ii. The opinion has been expressed that, before the applicant came along, the building known as Duncan's Halls looked sad and neglected and this area of Rothesay wasn't seen as a destination. Now, the building looks uniform and is visited by tourists and locals alike. It is stated that the Gather Deli is an asset to Bute and offers products and a visiting experience unlike any other on the island. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. iii. It is contended that the land to the rear of No. 19 East Princes Street has been neglected. The vegetation is overgrown and the drainage system is non-functional with large pools of stagnant water accumulating. It is contended that, over many years, rubbish and abandoned building materials have collected in the area and in the pools of standing water. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. iv. It is contended that there have been a number of recent incidents where discarded building materials have been left on the back area or blocking the accesses and egress to the rear of the building. It is suggested that this is an example of potential trip and fire hazards for the residents and businesses in the building. Business owners have taken it upon themselves to dispose of this material at their own cost. Comment: This comment is noted but these matters do not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. v. It is considered that the proposed changes would greatly improve the working environment of Gather Deli employees by making it safer and generally more pleasant to work and take breaks in. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. vi. It is considered that the addition of a fence would make a beneficial improvement to the garden which is in need of a professional landscape as it has become very much overgrown and untidy for some time. Page 57
Page 58
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. vii. One supporter’s observations of the existing and planned commercial operations at the building is that they have been approached responsibly and activities that have been undertaken have been well planned and executed in accordance with the principles, guidelines and regulations for such work. Comment: This comment is noted but these matters do not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. viii. The occupier of the shop premises at 19 East Princes Street in 2021-22 has stated that there was access through the back door to the ground at the rear. This large area was overgrown and seemed to be mainly used as an area to store building materials, bins, etc. Due to COVID restrictions at that time, there was encouragement to do many activities outdoors if possible, but the area in question was highly unsuitable, with uneven, badly drained ground, broken glass, etc. Comment: This issue is addressed in Appendix A later in this report. ix. The owner of a first floor flat at No. 21 East Princes Street has stated that he has never been notified or invited to any "residents meeting" on this matter nor has he been included in any votes regarding this land. As such, he considers that any claims that residents have voted "unanimously" is entirely false and should be disregarded. Comment: This comment is noted but this matter does not have a material bearing upon the planning aspects of the case. Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Argyll and Bute - Planning Documents section of the Council’s website. (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 Page 58
Page 59
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The relevant Sustainability Checklist and Sustainable Building Checklist have been submitted and examined. It is considered that the agent has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. The checklists are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Argyll and Bute - Planning Documents section of the Council’s website. (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 obligation required: ☐Yes ☒ No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32:☐Yes ☒ No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste Page 59
Page 60
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places NPF4 Policy 27 – City, Town, Local and Commercial Centres NPF4 Policy 28 – Retail Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Sustainable Communities Policy 45 – Supporting our Town Centres and Retailing Policy 46 – Retail Development – The Sequential Approach Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Area (LLA) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (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 Comments Planning History Argyll and Bute Technical Note on Biodiversity (2017) TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (2023) TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (2023) Page 60
Page 61
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (K) Is the development 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 In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, Members should consider the following: • How up to date the Development Plan is; the relevance of the policies to the proposed development; and whether the comments are on Development Plan policy grounds that have recently been considered through the Development Plan process • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance At the time of writing, objections to the application have been submitted by seventeen sources whilst expressions of support have been received from thirty- seven sources. The determining factors in the assessment of the application are whether the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues introduced by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold Planning Permission. In this instance, the proposal is within the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay; the layout and design of the development are considered to be appropriate; and there are no outstanding infrastructure or servicing issues. These factors result in a proposal that, subject to the attaching of suitably worded conditions, is wholly consistent with the provisions of both National and Local Planning Policy. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the information that is available, together with the officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, are sufficiently detailed and robust to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. On this basis, therefore, it is not considered that the objections or expressions of support raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. Page 61
Page 62
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (O) (i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Setting of Listed Building Conservation Area Local Landscape Area (ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built-up Area/Unclassified Land 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 (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 ☐Not applicable (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.: Area for Action A1001 Rothesay Town Centre/Waterfront Page 62
Page 63
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Duncan’s Halls is located at 19-25 East Princes Street in Rothesay on the Isle of Bute. It is a Category B Listed Building that occupies a visually prominent position within the town centre part of the Rothesay Conservation Area. The application site consists of the ground floor unit at No. 19 East Princes Street and an area of land measuring approximately 790 square metres that is located to the rear of Duncan’s Halls where the Palace Cinema was situated prior to its demolition over fifty years ago. The ground floor unit has historically been a retail premises but 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. Planning Permission is sought for the following: • The erection of a boundary fence and gate along the western boundary of the application site as it adjoins the communal ground that is shared by the upper floor residential properties. The fence would be constructed with timber posts at 1.8 metres centres and would incorporate vertical timber boards to a height of 1.6 metres above ground level • The removal of vegetation from the application site and the provision of land drainage • The use of the ground to be cleared for the following purposes: an area for staff employed by the applicant in Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street to take outdoor breaks; the placement of waste and recycling bins along part of the northern boundary in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street; the provision of an area for the outdoor storage of stock and for the external display of goods for sale in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street Spatial & Settlement Strategy and Principle of Development The site is located within the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) and, given that it was previously occupied by a cinema/bingo hall/theatre building but is now largely overgrown with trees and vegetation, it is considered to constitute brownfield land that has become naturalised. The proposal would create a useable external space in association with the immediately adjacent ground floor commercial businesses. Given the mixed use nature of this particular area of the town (which includes commercial, retail and residential), it is considered that the proposal finds support in respect of criterion (a) of NPF4 Policy 27 in that it would assist with the vitality of businesses in the immediate vicinity. Page 63
Page 64
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Impact on Local Landscape Area, Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Including Sense of Place and Quality of Design The site is located in the Bute Local Landscape Area; it is adjacent to Duncan’s Halls (a Category B Listed Building); and it is within the Rothesay Conservation Area. The proposal is for a relatively small scale and minor development (the erection of fencing and a gate) that would be located in a visually inconspicuous position. It would not affect any important features on the Listed Building nor would it impinge on its setting and it would have a ‘neutral’ effect thereby preserving the character of this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area and protecting the integrity of the wider Bute Local Landscape Area. Natural Environment Including Biodiversity, Soils and Trees/Woodland A considerable part of the application site has a significant amount of overgrown vegetation and there are a number of trees towards the base of the rock cliff along the south-eastern boundary. Clearance of the vegetation is proposed but there is no indication that trees are to be removed. However, it is recognised that, at present, access over the area of ground for the purpose of survey and investigation becomes increasingly difficult the further one moves away from the rear wall of the building in a south-easterly direction. In these circumstances, it is considered both necessary and reasonable to attach a condition that requires a survey and appraisal of the natural environment within the site to ensure that anything of significance and importance is not adversely affected and to allow for proposals for biodiversity benefits to be formulated. Impact on Residential Amenity The current application description incorporates reference to the use of the land to the rear “as part of the curtilage of the retail unit at 19 East Princes Street” and this is mentioned in the accompanying ‘Land Ownership Report’ and the annotation on the Proposed Site Plan. The ground floor unit at No. 19 has historically been a retail premises but 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 applicant’s premises at No. 22 is a store whilst she obtained Planning Permission (ref: 24/01462/PP) in December 2024 to change the use of her delicatessen business at No. 24 into a licensed restaurant. Given the proximity of the applicant’s three businesses to the land to the rear, clarification was sought from her as to how she intended to use the area of ground. She has provided the following written confirmation: • An area for staff employed by the applicant in Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street to take outdoor rest breaks • The placement of waste and recycling bins along part of the northern boundary in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street Page 64
Page 65
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • The provision of an area for the outdoor storage of stock and for the external display of goods for sale in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street. The display of goods for sale is likely to involve members of the public having access to the land but the applicant has confirmed that “customers won't need to access the space via the alleyways for Nos. 21 and 23 as they will be able to access directly from the rear door at No. 19” In the interests of protecting the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the residential flats on the floors above Nos. 19, 22 and 24, it is considered both necessary and reasonable to attach conditions in relation to controlling the use of the land; how it is accessed by customers; how it is used for staff rest breaks; and agreeing details of external lighting. Waste Storage/Collection In the applicant’s supporting statement, they have stated that the refuse and recycling bins associated with their commercial properties are currently located in the communal area to the rear of building, which they advise is within the deeds of all of the properties. It is the applicant’s intention that, once the land drainage issue is resolved and the area of ground in question has been enclosed with fencing, the commercial bins would be moved into a position adjacent to the north-easternmost boundary wall. Flood and Water Management Access to the land in the application site becomes more difficult the further one moves away from the rear wall of the building and it is understood that the clearance of vegetation would create the opportunity to survey the ground conditions; identify any issues; and then formulate plans for improving land drainage. As such, it is considered appropriate to attach a condition that affords time for this process to take place but requires that the system is agreed with the Planning Authority prior to its implementation. (Q) Is the application consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission should be granted The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan which comprise National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 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. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan Not applicable. Page 65
Page 66
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 3rd April 2025 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 4th April 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 66
Page 67
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01459/PP 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 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. Page 67
Page 68
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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 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. Page 68
Page 69
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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: 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. Page 69
Page 70
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01459/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT The Application Site Duncan’s Halls is located at 19-25 East Princes Street in Rothesay on the Isle of Bute. It is a Category B Listed Building that occupies a visually prominent position within the town centre part of the Rothesay Conservation Area. Historic Environment Scotland’s listing record states that the building dates from 1876 and was designed by James Hamilton and Sons. It is described as a “symmetrical 4-storey with attic, 7-bay French Baroque style tenement forming part of terrace with shops at ground.” The ‘Statement of Interest’ in the listing record is relatively detailed and contains the following text: “Duncan's Halls is a distinctive tenement and former hall in a prominent position in the centre of Rothesay. The building displays an array of fine architectural motifs with pedimented windows, engaged columns, balustraded parapet and French-pavilion-roofs all making a significant contribution to the streetscape. Walker describes it as a "...palatial piece of French beaux-arts theatricality", highly appropriate for this sea side town. A large hall to the rear, subsequently a picture theatre and since demolished, was originally accessed from the central bay (now boarded up). The bold design and use of high quality materials, such as sandstone Ashlar for Duncan's Halls is particularly characteristic of this period of development in the town and can be seen in domestic architecture in the outlying residential areas.” As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, a large building had projected from the rear of Duncan’s Halls and, based on information to hand, this operated as the Palace Cinema from 1913 until 1963 after which it was converted into a bingo hall. In 1973, the Palace Cinema was re-opened as a live theatre but, in the following winter, the cliffs at the rear of the building slipped after a period of heavy rain. As a result, the auditorium was seriously damaged leading to its partial collapse and eventual demolition. The application site consists of the ground floor unit at No. 19 East Princes Street and an area of land measuring approximately 790 square metres that is located where the Palace Cinema was situated prior to its demolition over fifty years ago. The ground floor unit has historically been a retail premises but 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. A high wall runs along the northern boundary of the site on top of which there is a vertical timber fence and there is the gable of a building further to the east. The south-eastern boundary runs along the bottom of a rock cliff whilst the south-western boundary consists of a stone wall that separates the site from the rear amenity area of Nos. 16-18 East Princes Street. Part of the western boundary adjoins the rear wall of No. 19 whilst the remainder of this boundary separates the land in the application from the communal ground that is shared by the upper floor residential properties. The application site has two sheds – the smaller one is adjacent to the high wall along the northern boundary whilst the larger one is next to the stone wall on the southern boundary. There is a considerable amount of vegetation throughout the site and there are a number of trees in the south-eastern part. In their supporting statement, the applicant has pointed out Page 70
Page 71
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL that the ground in the areas covered by vegetation and trees is relatively wet with pools of stagnant water. The Proposed Development Planning Permission is sought for the following: • The erection of a boundary fence and gate along the western boundary of the application site as it adjoins the communal ground that is shared by the upper floor residential properties. The fence would be constructed with timber posts at 1.8 metres centres and would incorporate vertical timber boards to a height of 1.6 metres above ground level • The removal of vegetation from the application site and the provision of land drainage • The use of the ground that has been cleared for the following purposes: an area for staff employed by the applicant in Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street to take outdoor breaks; the placement of waste and recycling bins along part of the northern boundary in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street; the provision of an area for the outdoor storage of stock and for the external display of goods for sale in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street Procedural Matters One of the issues that has been raised during the processing of the application is the ownership of the site and it might be useful if this is addressed prior to the full assessment taking place. Some of those objecting to the application have asserted that the applicant does not own the outdoor area of land on which development is to take place i.e. the majority part of the site that is outwith the footprint of the ground floor unit at No. 19 East Princes Street. In the supporting documents that have been submitted by the applicant and by her agent, the opinion is expressed that, when the front tenement (Duncan’s Halls) ceased its commercial uses (offices and entertaining spaces), it was separated into twelve flats. It is stated that the ground to the rear was purposely left off of the deeds of all the residential properties when they were sold off and every residential flat has the same deed. The applicant states that they bought the commercial premises at Nos. 19 and 22 entirely because of the ground to the rear. They contend that the previous owners of the shops at Nos. 19 & 22 (having the only direct access and being the only proprietors granted access in the narrative of the deeds) have cleared and maintained the derelict land for decades and they have continued to clear it since their purchase. The applicant has sought advice from local historians and archaeologists as well as tracing all the historic deeds before the submission of the application “to ensure (they) had undertaken all the necessary due diligence”. The land ownership certification in the application form describes the steps that the applicant has taken (as referred to in the preceding paragraph) to ascertain the names and addresses of the owners of the site and this follows the requirements of Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. Page 71
Page 72
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL From a procedural perspective, given that the applicant has followed the proper protocol under the aforementioned Regulations, it is considered that the Planning Authority can proceed to determine the application. However, it is important to highlight that the approval of Planning Permission would not confer ownership of the land on to the applicant and, if it transpires that there are other parties with an ownership interest, they would require to follow the appropriate procedures in obtaining any separate consents (such as consent from the other owners) that were necessary. Consideration of the Proposed Development The assessment of the issues in this section of the report pays due regard to the overarching NPF4 Policy 1, which seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions. 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 for or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. The key issues for consideration are: 1. Spatial & Settlement Strategy and Principle of Development 2. Impact on Local Landscape Area, Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Including Sense of Place and Quality of Design 3. Natural Environment Including Biodiversity, Soils and Trees/Woodland 4. Impact on Residential Amenity 5. Waste Storage/Collection 6. Flood and Water Management Spatial & Settlement Strategy and Principle of Development 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. 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. NPF4 Policy 9(a) supports proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land and, in determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. NPF4 Policy 15(a) supports development proposals that would contribute to ‘Local Living’ including, where relevant, ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to a number of facilities. Page 72
Page 73
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 27(a) of NPF4 states that development proposals that enhance and improve the vitality of city, town and local centres will be supported. Policy 01 (‘Settlement Areas’) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) notes that development will normally be acceptable where, inter alia: it involves the redevelopment of a brownfield site; it is compatible with surrounding uses; it is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; it respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and it complies with all relevant LDP2 policies. LDP2 Policy 04 (‘Sustainable Development’) advocates making efficient use of vacant and/or derelict land Assessment The site is located within the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) and, given that it was previously occupied by a cinema/bingo hall/theatre building but is now largely overgrown with trees and vegetation, it is considered to constitute brownfield land that has become naturalised. The proposal would create a useable external space in association with the immediately adjacent ground floor commercial businesses. Given the mixed use nature of this particular area of the town (which includes commercial, retail and residential), it is considered that the proposal finds support in respect of criterion (a) of NPF4 Policy 27 in that it would assist with the vitality of businesses in the immediate vicinity. Moreover, Rothesay has bus links, shops, cafes, primary schools, a secondary school (Rothesay Academy), health care facilities and play parks, etc. and, therefore, the proposal would be consistent with the principles of ‘20 minute neighbourhoods’ and ‘Local Living’ as advocated in NPF4 Policy 15. The detailed assessment that follows in this report demonstrates that, subject to the attaching of appropriately worded conditions, the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the townscape in terms of use, scale and design. On the basis of the above, it is considered that there is a general presumption in favour of the principle of this proposed development in terms of its location, nature and scale when assessed against the policy provisions relating to the LDP2 Settlement Strategy and relevant NPF4 Policy. Impact on Local Landscape Area, Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Including Sense of Place and Quality of Design NPF4 Policy 4(a) opposes proposals which, by virtue of their type, location or scale, would have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment. The site is located in the Bute Local Landscape Area (LLA) and this designation is a recognition of locally important physical landforms that are of scenic value. LDP2 Policy 71 seeks to resist development in, or affecting, an LLA where its scale, location or design would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape and one of the requirements contained in it is that an application for development within an LLA should be supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment. NPF4 Policy 7(c) seeks to ensure that proposals affecting the setting of a Listed Building should preserve its character and its special architectural or historic interest whilst Policy 7(d) Page 73
Page 74
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL will only support proposals in Conservation Areas where the character and appearance of the designated area are preserved or enhanced. These NPF4 Policies are closely aligned with LDP2 Policy 16 (‘Listed Buildings’), which supports proposals that respects a Listed Building in terms of setting, scale, design, materials and proposed use, and LDP2 Policy 17 (‘Conservation Areas’), which presumes against development that would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an existing Conservation Area. 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(b) supports development proposals where they would be consistent with the six qualities of ‘health’; ‘pleasantness’; ‘connectivity’; ‘distinctiveness’; ‘sustainability’; and ‘adaptability’. NPF4 Policy 14(c) does not support development that is poorly designed, detrimental to the amenities of surrounding areas or inconsistent with the aforementioned six qualities. NPF4 Policy 14 is closely aligned with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 04 (‘Sustainable Development’) which requires developers to demonstrate certain sustainable development principles and also Policy 05 (‘Design and Placemaking’) which requires developers to comply with certain placemaking criteria including: compatibility with surrounding land uses; respecting site topography; and adopting design that respects and complements its surroundings and which is sustainable in terms of materials and construction. LDP2 Policy 08 (‘Sustainable Siting’) requires that development integrates into the existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment. The siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density. LDP2 Policy 09 (‘Sustainable Design’) requires that development proposals demonstrate consideration of sustainable design and construction methods. LDP2 Policy 10 (‘Design: All Development’) requires demonstration of an appropriate response to the development site and wider context and the use of materials that are harmonious with the context. In relation to sustainability, the application has included the submission of the ‘Sustainability Checklist’ and the ‘Sustainable Buildings Checklist’ in response to LDP2 Policy 09. Assessment The above-ground development that is proposed in the application is the erection of fencing and a gate on land to the rear of the main building. This would be constructed with timber posts at 1.8 metres centres; would incorporate vertical timber boards to a height of 1.6 metres above ground level; and would cover a distance of approximately 21 metres. The proposed clearance of vegetation on the area of ground, whilst not falling within the definition of “development”, would also alter the appearance of the land in question. A section of timber fencing has been in place for a number of years adjoining the south- westernmost enclosed circular stairwell and this covers a distance of approximately 4 metres. Whilst the site is located within the Bute Local Landscape Area (LLA), no formal landscape and visual impact assessment has been submitted with the application. However, the proposal is for a relatively small scale and minor development (the erection of fencing and a gate) that would be located in a visually inconspicuous position. In these circumstances, it is considered that the submitted plans and drawings; the completed Sustainability Checklist and Sustainable Page 74
Page 75
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Buildings Checklist; and the carrying out of an officer site inspection provide sufficient information to allow an appropriate form of assessment to be carried out. From a built environment perspective, Historic Environment Scotland describes Duncan’s Halls as a “distinctive” building located in a “prominent position in the centre of Rothesay” that “displays an array of fine architectural motifs … all making a significant contribution to the streetscape”. It is evident, therefore, that it is an important building although the individual qualities that are referred to primarily feature on the front elevation and the streetscape to which it contributes is that which is open to public views with the principal frontages facing in a westerly direction towards the harbour. The principal elevation of Duncan’s Halls would not be affected by the proposed development and only relatively small sections of the new fencing might be glimpsed from the footway on East Princes Street through the closes of Nos. 21 and 23 at distances of approximately 11 metres and 14 metres respectively. The rear elevation of Duncan’s Halls can be observed when looking downwards from sections of Bishop Terrace, which is located to the south-east at a distance of approximately 70 metres. However, it is primarily the upper storeys of the building that are most visible with the land that is the subject of the application largely hidden from site. Having regard to the abovementioned factors – the visually inconspicuous location of the land to the rear of Duncan’s Hall and the relative lack of architectural interest and quality of the building’s rear elevation in comparison with the front façade – it is considered that the proposed development would have a ‘neutral’ effect thereby preserving the setting of the Category B Listed Building and this part of the Rothesay Conservation Area and protecting the integrity of the wider Bute Local Landscape Area. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above and all other relevant Policies contained in Section (J) of this report. Natural Environment Including Biodiversity, Soils and Trees/Woodland NPF4 Policy 3 generally seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and to deliver positive benefits from development that strengthens nature networks and it is generally aligned with LDP2 Policy 73 (‘Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity’). NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature- based solutions and, insofar as it relates to the location, nature and scale of the current proposal, it largely aligns with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 73. LDP2 Policy 04 (‘Sustainable Development’) seeks to conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and to avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets. LDP2 Policy 73 ensures that other legislation relating to biodiversity habitats are fully considered in relation to development proposals; and generally that development does not have an adverse impact on habitat or species, particularly in relation to habitat or species designated as being of European, national or local significance. NPF4 Policy 5 seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. Policy 5(a) only supports proposals if they are designed and constructed in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding and then minimising the amount of disturbance to soils on undeveloped land; in a manner that protects soil from damage including from compaction and erosion; and that minimises soil sealing. Page 75
Page 76
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL LDP2 Policy 79 seeks to only support development where appropriate measures are taken to maintain soil resources and functions to an extent that is considered relevant and proportionate to the scale of the development. Policy 5(b) only supports proposals on prime agricultural land or on land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use providing that they might specific criteria. NPF4 Policy 6(b) seeks to resist proposals where, inter alia, they would result in adverse impacts on individual trees of high biodiversity value and it is generally aligned with LDP2 Policy 77 (‘Forestry, Woodland and Trees’). Assessment A considerable part of the application site has a significant amount of overgrown vegetation and there are a number of trees towards the base of the rock cliff along the south-eastern boundary. Clearance of the vegetation is proposed but there is no indication that trees are to be removed. However, it is recognised that, at present, access over the area of ground for the purpose of survey and investigation becomes increasingly difficult the further one moves away from the rear wall of the building in a south-easterly direction. In these circumstances, it is considered both necessary and reasonable to attach a condition that requires a survey and appraisal of the natural environment within the site to ensure that anything of significance and importance is not adversely affected and to allow for proposals for biodiversity benefits to be formulated. The site is not within an identified area of peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat and, in these circumstances, it is considered sufficient that the standard soil management condition (ensuring compliance with the established best practice set out by DEFRA) is attached to the Decision Notice. The site is within a built-up area and does not have an agricultural land classification. On this basis, it is not considered that the proposal would result in the loss of land that is “culturally or locally important for primary use”. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to a suitably worded condition, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above and all other relevant Policies contained in Section (J) of this report. Impact on Residential Amenity NPF4 Policy 23(e) opposes proposals that are likely to raise unacceptable noise issues. LDP2 Policy 05 (‘Design and Placemaking’) requires that proposals should be compatible with surrounding land uses whilst Policy 08 (‘Sustainable Siting’) seeks to ensure that proposals integrate into the existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment. LDP2 Policy 14 (‘Bad Neighbour Development’) seeks to resist any proposal that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses resulting from a variety of sources, including noise. It states that, in certain circumstances, it may be possible to mitigate adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity by placing restrictions on the proposed development via planning conditions. Page 76
Page 77
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Assessment The applicant has ground floor commercial properties at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street that all adjoin the land to the rear. The current application description incorporates reference to the use of the land to the rear “as part of the curtilage of the retail unit at 19 East Princes Street” and this is mentioned in the accompanying ‘Land Ownership Report’ and the annotation on the Proposed Site Plan. When the application was registered in September 2024, the premises at No. 19 was vacant but it had historically been used for retail purposes; hence the reference to a retail unit in the description. There was an application (ref: 21/00110/PP) under consideration at the time to change the premises from its previous retail use into a wine bar and Planning Permission was approved for the change of use in November. The Planning unit to which this permission related was confined to the footprint of the building and an area of the footway to the front of the premises and, as such, the approval did not authorise the use of the land to the rear as part of the wine bar business. Work commenced in February 2025 on the conversion of No. 19 although it is understood that the use of the premises as a wine bar has not yet commenced. The applicant’s premises at No. 22 is a store whilst she obtained Planning Permission (ref: 24/01462/PP) in November 2024 to change the use of her delicatessen business at No. 24 into a licensed restaurant. Given the proximity of the applicant’s three businesses to the land to the rear, clarification was sought from them as to how they intended to use the area of ground. They have provided the following written confirmation: • An area for staff employed by the applicant in Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street to take outdoor rest breaks • The placement of waste and recycling bins along part of the northern boundary in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street • The provision of an area for the outdoor storage of stock and for the external display of goods for sale in association with the applicant’s commercial businesses at Nos. 19, 22 and 24 East Princes Street. The display of goods for sale is likely to involve members of the public having access to the land but it is confirmed that “customers won't need to access the space via the alleyways for Nos. 21 and 23 as they will be able to access directly from the rear door at No. 19” In the interests of protecting the privacy and amenity of the occupiers of the residential flats on the floors above Nos. 19, 22 and 24, it is considered both necessary and reasonable to attach the following conditions: ▪ 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 ▪ 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’ Page 77
Page 78
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL ▪ 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. This time has been chosen as it is the same cut-off as that stipulated in the conditions of Planning Permissions 21/00110/PP and 24/01462/PP for the outdoor seating to the front of No. 19 and No. 24 respectively ▪ Prior to their installation, full details of all external lighting to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to the attaching of suitably-worded conditions, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above and all other relevant Policies contained in Section (J) of this report. Waste Storage/Collection NPF4 Policy 12(c) expects that those developments that are likely to generate waste when operational (including residential, commercial, and industrial properties) should incorporate measures to minimise the cross-contamination of materials through the appropriate segregation and storage of waste together with convenient access for the collection of waste. Policy 63 of LDP2 explains that developments shall make effective land use and layout provision for the storage, separation, recycling, composting and collection of waste. Assessment In the applicant’s supporting statement, they have stated that the refuse and recycling bins associated with their commercial properties are currently located in the communal area to the rear of building, which they advise is within the deeds of all of the properties. Their intention is that, once the land drainage issue is resolved and the area of ground in question has been enclosed with fencing, the commercial bins would be moved into a position adjacent to the north-easternmost boundary wall. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above and all other relevant Policies contained in Section (J) of this report. Flood and Water Management NPF4 Policy 22(c) seeks to ensure that proposed developments will not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; will manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS); and will seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. LDP2 Policy 61 seeks to ensure that development proposals manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), which should form part of and integrate with proposed and existing blue-green infrastructure. All SuDS features should be in accordance with the Principles of The SuDS Manual (C753). Assessment Access to the land becomes more difficult the further one moves away from the rear wall of the building and it is understood that the clearance of vegetation would create the opportunity Page 78
Page 79
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL to survey the ground conditions; identify any issues; and then formulate plans for improving land drainage. As such, it is considered appropriate to attach a condition that affords time for this process to take place but requires that the system is agreed with the Planning Authority prior to its implementation. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to a suitably-worded condition, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above and all other relevant Policies contained in Section (J) of this report. Page 79
Page 80
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 81
" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " """ " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " " " " " """ " " "" " " " " "" " " "" "" " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" "" " " " " " " " " " " " "" © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/01459/PP O 1:750 0 7 143.5 Meters Application Site Page 81
Page 82
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 83
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 23rd April 2025 Development Plan Scheme Annual Update – Local Development Plan 3 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 The main purpose of this report is to seek PPSL Committee approval of the attached Development Plan Scheme (DPS), including its associated Participation Statement. See Appendix A. 1.2 Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) was adopted in February 2024. The process of planning for its review and replacement began with the preparation of the first Development Plan Scheme (DPS), as agreed at Council on 24th April 2024. The DPS sets out the timetable for, and key milestones in, the LDP3 process and how people can become engaged at those stages. Annual updates of the DPS are a statutory requirement to verify the current position in terms of preparation of the LDP3 and to make any necessary adjustments. 1.3 This report presents the first annual update of the DPS. The key point to note is there has been a reprogramming to give an amended adoption date of June 2029 (previously March 2029). This re-scheduling has been made in order to accommodate the Oban and Helensburgh Strategic Development Framework (SDF) and Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA) processes. 1.4 Recommendations It is recommended that PPSL: i) note the contents of this report and approve the Development Plan Scheme (DPS) attached in Appendix A for publication and submission to the Scottish Ministers. Page 83 Agenda Item 5
Page 84
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 23rd April 2025 Development Plan Scheme Annual Update – Local Development Plan 3 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 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 process involves a number of statutory stages and significant engagement with communities, developers, key agencies, Councillors and other stakeholders. The revised Development Plan Scheme (DPS) (Appendix A) sets out the timetable and consultation process for LDP3 and is required to be updated annually, taking into account ongoing stakeholder feedback on the Participation Statement. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 It is recommended that PPSL: i) note the contents of this report and approve the Development Plan Scheme (DPS) attached in Appendix A, for publication and submission to the Scottish Ministers. 4.0 DETAIL Background 4.1 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 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (“the Act as amended”) sets out the preparation process and procedures associated with the production of the Plan. Given the number of statutory phases, scale of Argyll and Bute and nature of the issues to be addressed, this process will take around 5 years to complete. The planning authority is measured on its performance in respect of an up to date Local Development Plan by the Scottish Government. 4.2 Section 20B of the Act as amended requires each Planning Authority to prepare a DPS at least annually, and sets out specific requirements for the content and process of the LDP and DPS. Page 84
Page 85
Classification: OFFICIAL 4.3 The DPS sets out the Council’s preparation process for LDP3 and an overview of what is likely to be involved at each stage. The DPS includes a Participation Statement which details with whom and how we will undertake effective engagement. In writing the Participation Statement regard was given to the statutory requirements in terms of production of an LDP as well as to good practice as set out in “Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance” (Consultation Draft May 2023). 4.4 Under 20B (4A) of the Act as amended, when preparing the DPS planning authorities must seek the views of the public on what the content of the Participation Statement should be, and have regard to any views expressed. The original DPS was published online for a 4 week period with an online response form asking for any comments on the proposed Participation Statement. This was published via social media as well as via the LDP Newsletter. Emails were sent to Community Councils and colleagues in the Community Planning Partnership, the Community Development Team and Education and Youth groups. Additionally, this was subsequently picked up by the Council’s Keep in the Loop service who sent out an email alert prior to the closing date. Minor changes were made to the DPS in 2024 on the basis of the comments received, and prior to Council approval. 4.5 The DPS notes (at Section 8.8) that we remain “open for views” on the Participation Statement via email. No further comments have been received in this regard so no changes have been made to the Participation Statement in the revised DPS. 4.6 The DPS also makes reference to work which will support the LDP3. These include:- • the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) draft Environmental Report, which will identify and assess the environmental effects of proposed strategies, plans and programmes; • the Habitat Regulation Appraisal (HRA), which will assess potential impacts of LDP3 on European sites; • The Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (EqSEIA), which will take into account the 9 protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, and also the Public Sector Equality Act; the Fairer Scotland Duty; and the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018; • the proposed Delivery Programme, which will demonstrate a clear route to delivery for sites and proposals in LDP3. 4.7 Once the revised DPS has been approved for adoption by Members it is required to be published, copies placed in all public libraries within the planning authority area and 2 copies submitted to the Scottish Ministers. Page 85
Page 86
Classification: OFFICIAL 4.8 Since the approval of the DPS in April 2024 the following key actions have been completed in the LDP3 process: • DPS published (April 2024) • Invitation sent to communities to prepare Local Place Plans (June 2024) • Delivery Programme adopted and published (September 2024) • Consultants appointed to take forwards Strategic Development Frameworks for the Oban and Helensburgh areas (December 2024) 4.9 There has been reprogramming of the Evidence Report and Gatecheck stages by 7 months, and of subsequent stages by 3 months, giving an amended adoption date of June 2029 (previously March 2029). These scheduling decisions have been made in order to accommodate the Oban and Helensburgh Strategic Development Framework (SDF) and Housing Needs and Demand Assessment (HNDA) processes. The SDF and HNDA work are being carried out by consultants and the reprogramming allows these pieces of work to integrate more fully in the LDP3 process. Governance 4.10 The timeous preparation of development plans requires rigorous and carefully planned project management. The governance arrangements that support the delivery of LDP3 were approved by Council in April 2024 and are set out below:- • The following key stages go directly to full Council:- i) the Evidence Report, as required by Section 16B (5) and (6) of the Act as amended; ii) the Proposed Plan and proposed Delivery Programme, as required by Section 18 (1B) and (1C) and Section 21 (4), (4B) and (4C) of the Act as amended; iii) submission for Examination (including Council prepared Modification Report); iv) the decision to Adopt including Examination Modifications; v) adoption of the Delivery Programme. • The following preparatory and sub stages go to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee only:- i) subsequent DPS revisions; ii) Delivery Programme revisions. Delivery 4.11 The general costs associated with the preparation of LDP3 are met from within the Development Policy budget. To reflect available resources, utilise the efficiencies and potential wider reach, and to keep costs to a minimum meeting statutory requirements, consultation stages will be conducted online only with assistance in libraries and at service points for those with no online facilities/capability. Elements of the process will generally be kept to the statutory minimum, for example deposit locations and adverts. The LDP3 process runs across a 5 year period and therefore there is a risk that the proposal of any additional resource reductions in the future could impact Page 86
Page 87
Classification: OFFICIAL adversely on the delivery of LDP3 in line with the DPS, statutory requirements and performance indicators. 4.12 The costs for the DPEA Gatecheck and Examination are not covered by this budget. These are a cost pressure. Based on previous experience of the existing system these are likely to be in the order of £70-£100k. 30% of this cost would be anticipated in FQ2 2026/27, and 70% in FQ4 2028/29. Statutory printing requirements for the various stages, and printing the final LDP3 is not contained within this budget and would be estimated at £3-5k. 5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Engagement in the preparation of LDP3 is a vital component in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (“the Act as amended”). The DPS sets out a clear agenda for the LDP3 process and the associated public engagement and consultation as it progresses. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy - The Development Plan Scheme sets out the timetable and consultation process for the production of Local Development Plan 3 that will replace Local Development Plan 2, adopted 28th February 2024, in due course. 6.2 Financial - The cost for preparation of the DPS is contained within the Development Policy budget. The costs for Gatecheck and Examination are not covered by this budget. These are a cost pressure. Based on previous experience of the existing system these are likely to be in the order of £70- £100k. 30% of this cost would be anticipated in FQ2 2026/27, and 70% in FQ4 2028/29. Statutory printing requirements for the various stages, and printing the final LDP3 is not contained within this budget and is estimated at £3-5K. 6.3 Legal - There is a statutory duty to approve annually, publish and submit to the Scottish Ministers a Development Plan Scheme. 6.4 HR - None 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics - The DPS shows how the LDP3 process will be handled to encourage engagement with all. An Equalities Impact Assessment will be undertaken as part of the LDP3 process. 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – The DPS shows how the LDP3 process will be handled to encourage engagement with all. An Equalities Impact Assessment will be undertaken as part of the LDP3 process. Page 87
Page 88
Classification: OFFICIAL 6.5.3 Islands – The DPS shows how the LDP3 process will be handled to encourage engagement with all. An Equalities Impact Assessment will be undertaken as part of the LDP3 process. 6.6 Climate Change – LDP3 will provide an up-to-date position in terms of land use development and climate change impacts against which to assess planning applications. A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) will be carried out as part of the LDP3 process. 6.7 Risk - The preparation of LDP3 will run over 5 years and therefore there is an uncertainty regarding resource levels. Further reduction in resource levels would impact on delivery of LDP3 and could result in failure to meet legislative requirements and Scottish Government performance targets. 6.8 Customer Service - The DPS sets out how our customers can get involved in the Local Development Plan process. 6.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – LDP Preparation Guidance requires that Local Authorities make provision for including the youth and younger elements of population within the preparation of LDPs, and that plans to do this are demonstrated within the Development Plan Scheme. Kirsty Flanagan, Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Policy Lead Cllr Green For further information contact: Kim de Buiteléir - kim.debuiteleir@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix A: Development Plan Scheme 2025 Page 88
Page 89
Classification: OFFICIAL . Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 3 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME MARCH 2025 Appendix A Page 89
Page 90
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3: DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME 1. What is a Development Plan? 2. What is a Development Plan Scheme? 3. Current Local Development Plan (LDP2) 4. New Local Development Plan Arrangements 5. Influences of Plan Development 6. Stages of Plan Development 7. Other Work to Support LDP3 including Impact Assessments 8. Participation Statement 9. Follow the LDP Process 10. Indicative LDP3 Timeline Page 90
Page 91
Classification: OFFICIAL 1.0 WHAT IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN? 1.1 Development Plans set out a spatial strategy to promote development, and guides decisions on applications for planning permission in line with that strategy. The statutory Development Plan comprises the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (which is prepared by Scottish Ministers for the whole of Scotland) and the Local Development Plan (which is prepared by the Local Authority). The statutory Development Plan is informed by a non-statutory Regional Spatial Strategies (long term strategies for strategic development of the area) and Local Place Plans (community-led plans). 1.2 Argyll and Bute Council, as the planning authority for its area (excluding the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park) has a statutory duty under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, to prepare a Local Development Plan (LDP) for the area at intervals of no more than 10 years. 1.3 LDP2 was adopted on 28th February 2024 and along with the NPF4, makes up the statutory Development Plan. The statutory Development Plan may supported by Supplementary Guidance and/or non-statutory Technical Guidance which would be material considerations. Together, these documents form the basis for planning decisions to ensure the right development happens in the right place. 1.4 We are now working on the Evidence Report stage of LDP3 which should be prepared within 5 years of adoption of LDP2. Section 9 sets out how we aim to achieve this, with adoption of LDP3 proposed for 2029. Development Plan Diagram Page 91
Page 92
Classification: OFFICIAL 2.0 WHAT IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCHEME? 2.1 A Development Plan Scheme (DPS) tells you about the preparation of a Local Development Plan. 2.2 Whether you are a resident, landowner, developer, community representative, agent or public body, your input into the process is vital. The DPS aims to provide you with an easy to use guide as to when, where and how you can engage in the preparation process for the Local Development Plan. 2.3 This DPS covers the preparation process for the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 3 (LDP3). LDP3 will cover the whole of Argyll and Bute except for the area in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, which is a separate planning authority. 2.4 The DPS also includes what is involved at each stage of preparation or review, and a Participation Statement in section 8 which outlines when consultation is likely to take place, with whom and its likely form, including the steps to be taken to involve the public. 2.5 The DPS includes a timetable in section 10 of when we intend to reach key stages of LDP3. These include: • Publication of the Evidence Report • Publication of the Proposed LDP3 • Submission of the Proposed LDP3 to the Scottish Ministers • Expected adoption of LDP3 2.6 This is the second DPS setting out the programme for preparing and reviewing LDP3, which will continue to be updated annually, taking into account ongoing stakeholder feedback on the Participation Statement. 2.7 We will update the DPS on at least an annual basis to reflect the progress of the preparation of LDP3. 3.0 CURRENT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP2) 3.1 The current Local Development Plan (LDP2) was adopted on 28th February 2024. Although new arrangements were in place prior to the adoption of this Plan (see section 4), under section 4 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 (Commencement No. 12 and Saving and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2023, LDP2 was able Page 92
Page 93
Classification: OFFICIAL to progress under the old system in terms of requirements in these Regulations on their form and content, preparation, publication and publicity, Examination and monitoring. 3.2 LDP2 aligns with NPF4 as has been assured through the Examination process and final modifications prior to its adoption. LDP2 is accompanied by a Delivery Programme which was adopted on 26th September 2024. The Delivery Programme sets out how the policies and proposals are to be delivered and is to be reviewed every 2 years. 3.3 LDP2 is supported by additional non-statutory technical notes to assist with the delivery of the policies, with further to be produced in due course. 3.4 Strategies and Frameworks have been identified as commitments to be carried out during the lifetime of LDP2 which will feed into the preparation of LDP3. These include Strategic Development Frameworks for each of Oban, Helensburgh and Lomond (including a Green Belt review), Bowmore and Tobermory as well as an updated Foresty and Woodland Strategy. The Oban and Helensburgh Strategic Development Frameworks are being taken forward by external consultants. 4.0 NEW LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARRANGEMENTS 4.1 The Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June 2019 which has amended the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. The 2019 Act introduced the NPF4 as part of the Development Plan and has introduced changes to how Local Development Plans are prepared. 4.2 The LDP preparation is split into three distinct parts: • Evidence Gathering includes the requirement to prepare an “Evidence Report” following the gathering and collation of data and information which is assessed by Scottish Ministers at a Gate Check. • Plan Preparation draws on the Evidence Report as well as early engagement to prepare a proposed LDP including a spatial strategy. • Delivery is a key stage which, following the adoption and publication of the LDP, requires ongoing monitoring the impacts of policies and proposals. 4.3 Further information of what is involved in each step of this process as well as when we intend to undertake each step, is detailed within Section 6 and our indicative LDP3 Timeline at Section 10. Page 93
Page 94
Classification: OFFICIAL 5.0 INFLUENCES OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT 5.1 There are a wide range of factors that need to be taken into consideration in the preparation of a new Local Development Plan. The main ones are set out below: 5.2 National Planning context – Local Development Plans are influenced by a number of statutory requirements with the main Acts being the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 119 as amended by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, and the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. At national level the Scottish Government has published the National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) which forms part of the statutory Development Plan. Planning Authorities are required to take into account the NPF4 in the preparation of an LDP. 5.3 Argyll and Bute Outcome Improvement Plan – Local Development Plans are also influenced by a range of other plans, strategies and policies, in particular for Argyll and Bute the Outcome Improvement Plan (formerly Single Outcome Agreement) which is viewed as the overarching governing document. This is prepared jointly by the Council and other Community Planning partners and establishes the overarching policies and actions for the management of Argyll and Bute. It has an outcome focused approach and ensures that the Community Planning Partnership’s aims are delivered in an integrated manner and aligned with Scottish Government outcomes. 5.4 The policies and actions with development and land use implications of the Outcome Improvement Plan are reflected in the current Local Development Plan (LDP2) and will be reflected in LDP3. The Delivery Programme that accompanies LDP2 sets out how the Council proposes to implement the Plan. 5.5 All planning authorities, either individually or working jointly with other authorities, are required to prepare a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). This does not form part of the Statutory Development Plan however planning authorities must have regard to any adopted RSS’s when preparing an LDP. An Indicative Regional Spatial Strategy (iRSS) was prepared by Argyll and Bute Council in 2020 which provided Scottish Ministers input into their preparation of the NPF4. Regulation regarding preparation of RSS is awaited from the Scottish Government. 5.6 Local Place Plans (LPP’s) are community-led plans setting out proposals for the development and use of land. Communities must have regard to the NPF4 and LDP (and any locality plan if applicable). LPP’s do not form part of the statutory Development Plan however planning authorities must have regard for LPP’s when preparing an LDP. Valid Local Place Plans are being registered by the planning authority and made available online. Page 94
Page 95
Classification: OFFICIAL 5.7 Self-build housing is where an individual (or individuals) commissions or is personally involved in the design and construction of a dwellinghouse as their main residence. Understanding the demand for self-build housing is important for the evidence base for the preparation of LDP3. Argyll and Bute Council are required to prepare and maintain a list of persons who have registered an interest with the intention of acquiring land for self-build. An application form has been made available online within the Planning Policy webpage. 5.8 Local Authority and its Partners – Argyll and Bute Council has the statutory responsibility for planning in the Council area, excluding the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park where the Park Authority controls the planning function. It is important that all the relevant services within the Council (for example Economic Development, Roads and Amenity Services and Education) are fully engaged in the Plan preparation as they are integral to delivery of the LDP3 strategy and aims. LDP3 will also be influenced by the priorities of other stakeholders as set out in their own strategies and programmes. The stakeholders include key agencies, which (as set out in Regulation 25) are Historic Environment Scotland; Nature Scot; Scottish Environmental Protection Agency; Scottish Water; Scottish Enterprise; Highland and Island Enterprise; Regional Transport Partnerships; Crofting Commission; and Health Boards. The Scottish Government also require the following bodies to have the same level of involvement in the Local Development Plan process: Transport Scotland; Scottish Forestry; Marine Scotland; and any Regional Marine Planning Partnerships. Neighbouring authorities are also consulted throughout the LDP3 process. 5.9 Communities – The input of local communities is very important. The aspirations of local communities are communicated in a number of ways, including through formal documents such as Community Plans and via their Community Councils, Community Development Trusts or other community organisations. The priorities for communities influence the outcomes of the planning process. It is also important that individuals are able to be involved in shaping the future of our area. 5.10 Development Sector – Developers, landowners, businesses and investors are all important to this process, through land that they own, or finance they are looking to invest, or businesses which they wish to grow or set up in the area. These interests will be critical to defining and realising the Vision that will be set out in LDP3. 5.11 Governance – The preparation of LDP3 is governed by a statutory process, the key stages of which are set out in this Development Plan Scheme. The Local Development Planning Guidance published in May 2023, replaces and repeals Circular 6/2013 and sets out the Scottish Ministers’ expectations for implementing the LDP process including requirements and advice in relation to NPF4. Page 95
Page 96
Classification: OFFICIAL 6.0 STAGES OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT 6.1 Early Preparation. This stage includes the preparation of this Development Plan Scheme (DPS), early consideration of the issues and inviting local communities to prepare Local Place Plans (LPP’s). 6.2 Evidence Report. The purpose of the Evidence Report is to support the quality and effectiveness of the LDP by informing and justifying the content of the LDP. This will be informed by the views of stakeholders and will be subject to independent assessment at the Gate Check. 6.3 Gate Check. The assessment of the Evidence Report is called the Gate Check. This is carried out by a person appointed by the Scottish Ministers (usually a reporter from the DPEA). The Gate Check is an independent assessment of whether the planning authority has sufficient information to prepare an evidence-led Plan. 6.4 Proposed Plan Preparation. LDP3 will be place-based and informed by an infrastructure first approach. Its preparation will give due regard to the Evidence Report and will be subject to consultation and engagement with key agencies, communities and other stakeholders, and be informed by other relevant plans and strategies as detailed in section 5. The content of the LDP will be assessed through impact assessments (including SEA) as detailed at section 7. Consultation is taken on board and may be reflected in a Modification Report. 6.5 Examination. This stage involves independent consideration of any issues raised during the consultation stage that have not been resolved through modifications. A person is appointed by Scottish Ministers to examine the LDP who will, on completion of their examination of the unresolved issues, prepare a report setting out conclusions and recommendations. These recommendations are largely binding on the planning authority. 6.6 Adoption. Following the Examination the planning authority proceeds to adoption of the Plan, taking into account the Examination Report. Once the LDP is adopted this forms part of the Statutory Development Plan which is the basis against which decisions on planning applications are made. 6.7 Delivery and Monitoring. The Delivery Programme will demonstrate a clear route to delivery for sites and proposals in the LDP. This phase concentrates on delivering identified outcomes in the LDP (which feed into national and global outcomes) to make Argyll and Bute a better place. Ongoing monitoring will be essential to review the effective and outcomes of the LDP and to identify and Page 96
Page 97
Classification: OFFICIAL barriers to delivery – this then completes the loop as it will inform the initial stages of the subsequent LDP. 7.0 OTHER WORK TO SUPPORT LDP3 INCLUDING IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 7.1 As we progress through the Local Development Plan process we will make available information on the Strategic Environmental Assessment, Habitats Regulation Appraisal and the Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment. 7.2 Strategic Environmental Assessment – The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 requires us to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Local Development Plan. This is a process for identifying and assessing the environmental effects of proposed strategies, plans and programmes so that these are taken into account before they are approved or adopted. It is a vital tool which places environmental considerations at the heart of the decision-making process and ensures that alternatives are fully and transparently regarded before final decisions are taken. 7.3 We will consult with Nature Scot, Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency in preparing our Strategic Environmental Assessment. The end result of this is an Environmental Report. 7.4 Habitats Regulation Appraisal – We will produce a new Habitats Regulations Appraisal on the potential impacts of the proposed Local Development Plan on European sites. This will be submitted to the Scottish Ministers along with the Proposed Local Development Plan 3. There are a number of designated European sites within Argyll and Bute and so as the plans and policies are prepared for LDP3 any potential adverse impacts on these protected sites and species will be carefully considered. 7.5 Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment – under the Equality Act 2010 (Statutory Duties) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 we will undertake an Equality and Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (EqSEIA) of proposed policies and practices. In addition to the nine protected characteristics covered by the Equality Act 2010, the EqSEIA will take into account the Public Sector Equality Act; the Fairer Scotland Duty and the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018. Page 97
Page 98
Classification: OFFICIAL 8.0 PARTICIPATION STATEMENT 8.1 Community and stakeholder engagement is important in the planning process. It influenced the current policies and proposals in LDP2 and will influence the forthcoming plans and policies in LDP3. 8.2 The Effective Community Engagement in Local Development Planning Guidance (Consultation Draft – May 2023) sets out different levels of engagement appropriate to policy preparation activity, which have been summarised below. The term “consult” in this context should not be confused with references to consultation requirements in the Planning Act or Regulations. • Inform – providing balanced and objective information to inform those with an interest in the outcome • Consult – obtaining feedback to inform the planning authority in developing the proposals • Involve – working directly with stakeholders to enable them to influence development of proposals • Collaborate – to partner with participants to share development and decision making • Empower – to place decision making in other’s hands 8.3 At key stages we will engage with: • Stakeholders / key agencies in the public sector • Neighbouring local authorities and the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park • Statutory bodies and non-governmental organisations • Landowners, developers and others with business interests • The local community including residents and their representatives; Community Councils, Community Development Trusts and other community organisations; and other interested bodies Page 98
Page 99
Classification: OFFICIAL 8.4 We will use a variety of engagement techniques detailed in the list below. This includes information dissemination at each stage as well as full consultation, involvement and collaboration at key stages 2 and 4. We want to continue a discussion with all sectors of the community across Argyll and Bute but are particularly keen to secure the views and opinions of young people and families with children, as well as people in full time employment. These groups have been under-represented in the past and their involvement could help us look at new ways to achieve population retention and growth. In order to reach all sectors, information will be clear, accessible and in plain English where possible. • Provide information and consultation documents through our website, promoted by social media • Provide updates at key stages to those on our LDP3 contacts database, which will comprise anyone who requests to be added to receive updates, or who responds to consultations • Provide information through Community Councils, Council offices and local libraries • Place adverts in local newspapers and promote the LDP3 process with the media • Engage with the public and community at meetings and events • Provide online mapping of the proposed LDP3 • Engage with Councillors and Government agencies through Briefing meetings • Answer questions by email or telephone • Provide consultation updates via website and/or social media • Share information through social media • Provide for formal comments to be submitted online • Carry out Neighbour Notifications • Work with the Community Planning Partnership • Engage with young people through our Education partners • Adopt the use of online polling platforms 8.5 In line with Circular 2/2021 mediation may be used as a voluntary process to resolve issues of dispute between stakeholders Page 99
Page 100
Classification: OFFICIAL 8.6 Stages of Engagement Stage 1: Early Preparation Purpose (DPS): To give the public an opportunity to provide views on how the Council engages with them in the preparation of the Plan Purpose (LPP’s): To involve communities in the preparation of the Plan by empowering them to prepare Local Place Plans Stage 2: Evidence Report Purpose: To alert people to the start of the LDP3 preparation and involve communities to gather information for the Evidence Report. Stage 3: Gate Check No consultation at this stage (Information and Publicity only) Stage 4: Proposed Plan Preparation Purpose (Early Engagement): To provide an opportunity for people to put forward ideas to build a shared dialogue to shape the Plan’s content. Purpose (Consultation): To allow people to make formal representations on the content of the Proposed Plan. Stage 5: Examination No consultation at this stage (Information and Publicity only) Stage 6: Adoption No consultation at this stage (Information and Publicity only) Stage 7: Monitoring and Delivery No consultation at this stage Page 100
Page 101
Classification: OFFICIAL 8.7 Section 10 sets out in greater detail the stages we will go through and the estimated timescales for engagement and consultation. It provides a detailed breakdown of the Local Development Plan process, indicative timescales and the opportunity for engagement including any statutory periods of consultation. 8.8 You can keep up to date, access information on the Local Development Plan and contact the Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan Team as set out below. In particular we are “open for views” on the Participation Statement year round. Please email any views you would like taken into account in the preparation of next year’s Participation Statement to: ldp@argyll-bute.gov.uk 9.0 FOLLOW THE LDP PROCESS On the Council web site at Planning policy | Argyll and Bute Council (argyll-bute.gov.uk) And on X at: On Facebook @argyllandbute @ABC_Planning Ask a question: Email: ldp@argyll-bute.gov.uk Tel: 01546 604158 Page 101
Page 102
Classification: OFFICIAL 10.0 INDICATIVE LDP3 TIMELINE LDP3 Activities Engagement Level Engagement Techniques Stage 1: Early Preparation Q4 23/24 to Q2 24/25 (Jan 24 to Sep 24) - STAGE COMPLETE Stage 2: Evidence Report Q3 24/25 to Q1 26/27 (Oct 24 to Apr 26) Gather and collate evidence (Evidence to be monitored and reviewed) Inform, Involve, Collaborate Direct email to Developers Meetings with relevant Council officers and key agencies Community engagement Engagement with young people through Education partners. Work with Community Planning Partnerships Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Publicity - through social media and direct e-mailshot to Community Councils, key agencies and others on the LDP3 contacts database. Mediation may be used as a voluntary process to resolve issues of dispute between stakeholders SEA Scoping Consult Scoping Evidence Report Inform Full Council to approve. Page 102
Page 103
Classification: OFFICIAL Approval of Evidence Report by Council Submission to Scottish Ministers Submission to Scottish Ministers Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Publicity - through social media and direct e-mailshot to Community Councils, key agencies and others on the LDP3 contacts database. Stage 3: Gatecheck Q1 26/27 to Q2 26/27 (May to Jul 26) Prepare, collate and submit materials to DPEA for Gatecheck Gatecheck outcome received by DPEA Publish Evidence Report (and Assessment Report or Notification) Potential Consultation by appointed person Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Publicity - through social media and direct e-mailshot to Community Councils, key agencies and others on the LDP3 contacts database. Stage 4: Proposed Plan Preparation Q2 26/27 to Q1 28/29 (Aug 26 to Jun 28) Work to Inform Proposed Plan • Develop Spatial Strategy based on Evidence Report • Early engagement • Site Assessments (including SEA) • Undertake Transport Appraisal Consult, Involve, Collaborate Community Engagement – online response form Engagement with young people through Education partners. Work with Community Planning Partnerships Transport Appraisal – engagement with Argyll and Bute Council Roads department and Transport Scotland Page 103
Page 104
Classification: OFFICIAL Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Publicity - through social media and direct e-mailshot to Community Councils, key agencies and others on the LDP3 contacts database. E-Newsletter to all in contacts database Proposed Plan (Drafting) • Prepare Proposed Plan including Spatial Strategy • Consultation on Delivery Programme • Present proposed Delivery Programme to full Council for approval • Assess local policies for SEA and Prepare SEA • Prepare Impact Assessments: o Habitats Regulation Appraisal o Public Sector Equality Duty Assessment o Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment o Island Communities Impact Assessment Inform, Consult Full Council to approve Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Consult on the Delivery Programme with key agencies, Scottish Ministers and anyone named in the Programme. Publication and Consultation • Publish Proposed Plan, Evidence Report and Delivery Programme together • 12 week consultation on Proposed Plan and SEA • Publish Transport Appraisal, Habitats Regulation Appraisal, Pubic Sector Equality Duty Assessment, Fairer Scotland Duty Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate Briefings with Community Councils Work with Community Planning Partnerships Engage with Young People through our Education partners Briefings with Councillors and key agencies Page 104
Page 105
Classification: OFFICIAL Assessment and Island Communities Impact Assessment Community / public meetings, events and/or drop-ins Direct mail – neighbourhood notifications Online response form Copies of Proposed Plan made available in public libraries and Development Policy Office (Manse Brae, Lochgilphead) and published on dedicated council webpage. Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Publicity - through social media and direct e-mailshot to Community Councils, key agencies and others on the LDP3 contacts database. E-Newsletter to all in contacts database Notice in local newspapers Stage 5: Examination Q2 28/29 to Q4 28/29 (Jul 28 to Mar 29) Modification • Modification of Proposed Plan (where appropriate) • Preparation of Modification Report Inform Internal liaison Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Page 105
Page 106
Classification: OFFICIAL • Revise SEA to reflect modifications and undertake further consultation if required • Revise and update other assessments as required Prepare Summary of Unresolved Issues Submit Summary of Unresolved Issues and copy of Proposed Plan, along with all supporting documents, to the Scottish Ministers Inform Full Council to approve Submission to Scottish Ministers Proposed LDP3 made available in public libraries and Development Policy Office (Manse Brae, Lochgilphead) and published on dedicated council webpage. Publicity - through social media and direct e-mailshot to Community Councils, key agencies and others on the LDP3 contacts database. Notice in local newspapers Examination Examination Report issued by Reporter Inform Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Publicity - through social media Stage 6: Adoption Q1 29/30 (Apr to Jun 29) Modification of SEA (where necessary) Submit amended SEA to Scottish Ministers Inform Direct mail to Scottish Ministers (SEA) Page 106
Page 107
Classification: OFFICIAL Modification of LDP3 (where necessary) Adopt and publish LDP3 Publish Report on Modifications or Recommended Modifications Statement Prepare SEA post adoption statement Publish SEA post adoption statement Inform Full Council to approve Information – available on the dedicated Council webpage Notice in local newspapers Direct mail to Scottish Ministers. Adopted LDP3, Report and Statement made available in public libraries and Development Policy Office (Manse Brae, Lochgilphead) and published on dedicated council webpage. Notify all those who made representation on the proposed Plan. Stage 7: Monitoring and Delivery Q2 29/30 (Jul to Sep 29) Publish Delivery Programme Inform Full Council to approve Publication of Delivery Programme on dedicated Council web page. Hard copies will be available at local libraries and the Development Policy (Manse Brae) office Page 107
Page 108
Classification: OFFICIAL STAGE Q4 23/24 Jan – Mar 24 Q1 24/25 Apr – Jun 24 Q2 24/25 Jul – Sep 24 Q3 24/25 Oct – Dec 24 Q4 24/25 Jan – Mar 25 Q1 25/26 Apr – Jun 26 Q2 25/26 Jul – Sep 26 Q3 25/26 Oct – Dec 26 Q4 25/26 Jan – Mar 26 Q1 26/27 Apr – Jun 26 Q2 26/27 Jul – Sep 26 Q3 26/27 Oct – Dec 26 Q4 26/27 Jan – Mar 27 Q1 27/28 Apr – Jun 27 Q2 27/28 Jul – Sep 27 Q3 27/28 Oct – Dec 27 Q4 27/28 Jan – Mar 28 Q1 28/29 Apr – Jun 28 Q2 28/29 Jul – Sep 28 Q3 28/29 Oct – Dec 28 Q4 28/29 Jan – Mar 29 Q1 29/30 Apr – Jun 29 Q2 29/30 Jul – Sep 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 WE ARE HERE Page 108
Page 109
Document is Restricted Page 109 Agenda Item 6NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 110
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 111
Document is Restricted Page 115 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 112
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 113
Document is Restricted Page 117 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 114
This page is intentionally left blank