Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 9 April 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 9 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 2 April 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be 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 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MR LORNE THOMSON: CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO VEHICLE PARKING/STORAGE, INCLUDING LAYING OF HARDCORE, ERECTION OF BOUNDARY WALL AND FORMATION OF ACCESS (PART RETROSPECTIVE): LAND WEST OF BT TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, GARELOCHHEAD (REF: 24/01249/PP) (Pages 3 - 36) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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 Public Document Pack
Page 2
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 3
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 24/01249/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Lorne Thomson Proposal: Change of use of land to vehicle parking/storage, including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part retrospective) Site Address: Land West Of BT Telephone Exchange, Garelochhead ____________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 (A) INTRODUCTION This application is to be presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 22nd January 2025. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring the planning file up to date to include details of the late supporting representations submitted. ______________________________________________________________________ (B) REPRESENTATIONS Late Representations Following the completion of the Officer’s Report on 01.11.2024 a further 22 representations were lodged in support of the application: 1. Caroline Colquhoun, 4 West Daladhill Lane, Garelochhed, Helensburgh, G84 0BE, Received 18.11.2024 2. Cllr Maurice Corry, Received 13.11.2024 3. Iain Exley, 8 Malcolm Place, Helensburgh, G84 GHP, Received 15.11.2024 4. Liam Flanagan, 11 Upland Wynd, Garelochhead, G84 0BL, Received 13.11.2024 5. Denis Foster, Flat 3, Dalandhill East, Dalandhill Lane, Garelcohhead, G84 0BE, Received 11.11.2024 6. Sarah Gordon, Uisken, Feorlin Way, Garelochhead, G84 0DF, Received 11.11.2024 7. Robert Griffiths, Rannochbrae, Station Road, Garelochhead, G84 0BD, Received 18.11.2024 8. Justin Kimmett, Duntorquil, Portincaple, Helensburgh, G84 0CU, Received 15.11.2024 9. Gemma Kimmett, Duntorquil, Portincaple, Helensburgh, G84 0CU, Received 15.11.2024 10. William Mitchell, Willow Barn, Glen Fruin, Helensburgh, G84 8YT, Received 18.11.2024 11. Katie Morley, 214 West Princess Street, G84 8HA, Received 13.11.2024 Page 3 Agenda Item 3
Page 4
Classification: OFFICIAL 12. Jason Pocock, Camsail Cottage, Rosneath, Helensburgh, G84 0QR, Received 13.11.2024 13. Julieann Powell, 14 Collins Road, Helensburgh, G84 7UA, Received 11.11.2024 14. Anthony Robson, 10 Townhead Road, Helensburgh, G84 7LX, Received 11.11.2024 15. Alice Samara, 1 /2 Stroul Lodge, Clynder, G84 0QA, Received 15.11.2024 16. Karen Shaw, 12 Tomamhoid, Rosneath, Helensurgh, G84 0RE, Received 15.11.2024 17. Susan Slade, Duntorquil, Feuins Road, Portincaple, Helensburgh G84 0EU, Received 18.11.2024 18. Kevin Small, 51 Malcolm Place, Helensburgh, G84 9HN, Received 13.11.2024 19. Kayla Smith, 214 West Princess Street, Helensburgh, GB4 8HA, Received 13.11.2024 20. Lewis Syme, Willow Bank, Rowmore Estate, Garelochhead, G84 0EH, Received 15.11.2024 21. Unknown, Mayfield, Old School Road, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AT, Received 13.11.2024 22. D West, 6 Strathfillan Terrace, Crianlarich, FK20 8QW, Received 12.11.2024 The matters raised in the further representations are summarised below: • The proposal will help alleviate local parking issues • The proposal will improve the condition of the site which is an eyesore • The proposed planting will help screen the site form the public road The expressions of support do not raise any new matters that have not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling before Members. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report which does not introduce any new information that has not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling. The recommendation of the Planning Authority remains that planning permission be Refused in line with the reasons appended to the original Report of Handling. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 09.01.2025 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 09.01.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 4
Page 5
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 24/01249/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Lorne Thomson Proposal: Change of Use of Land to vehicle parking/storage, including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part-retrospective). Site Address: Land West Of BT Telephone Exchange, Garelochhead, Argyll & Bute DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Change of use of land to form vehicle parking • Creation of access • Erection of boundary wall • Laying of hardcore (ii) Other specified operations • Landscaping (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: ABC Local Biodiversity Officer Date Consulted: 02.09.2024 Response Received: 10.10.2024 • The site extends to 0.19ha of historic woodland (now hard surface), with McCauley Burn to the south and east. The site had suitable habitat present for European Protected Species (EPS) and Protected Species (PS). Page 5
Page 6
Classification: OFFICIAL • The applicant states “It is acknowledged that in 2019 trees were removed from the application site. As noted above these trees were poor quality and self- seeded, and more importantly the site was being invaded by Japanese Knotweed.” • If the woodland had not been removed, I would have needed the following information from the applicant: a) European Protected Species, Protected Species (mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) surveys that would have need to be carried out prior to any works commencing. The trees may have had potential for roosting bats, red squirrels, pine marten, and breeding birds. b) Tree Survey to show the condition, species, age and conservation value of the trees within the site area. This would show if the trees were of poor quality and self-seeded. In accordance with NPF4 Policy 6, woodland removal is only supported under certain conditions. If would also be useful to see the discussions with Scottish Forestry of proposed tree felling advice to help clarify this. c) Method of Japanese Knotweed removal and its management plan. Invasive non-native species need set protocols to be followed for their clearance. Recommendations • Details of the location, species, and size of every tree/shrub they propose to plant. • A programme of tree/shrub planting to show timings, method of implementation, completion, and on-going maintenance and monitoring. • The agreed tree planting scheme should be completed within the first planting season (October – April). • A programme of the invasive non-native Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) clearance to show its location, and timings and method of removal. • Works to be carried out outwith the optimum time of spawning sea trout (October to January) to avoid impact on them. • The proposed site / landscape design shows improvements to the site as it stands now. There is still a lack of connectivity at the south part of the car park, and I would recommend the native woodland on either side be continued through to meet one another. • However, with regard the land as it was, prior to unauthorised tree feeling, the proposed site / landscape design does not follow NPF4 Policy 3 or Policy 6 guidance. ABC Development Policy Officer Date Consulted: 02.09.2024 Response Received: 11.10.2024 • The application site sits within an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA). The southern part of the OSPA was considered in the Examination stage of LDP2. The Reporter notes that “although not appearing to have significant informal recreational use, [it] nevertheless contributes significantly to the character and amenity of the village. The application site itself forms a small part of this. • Policy 81 of LDP2 sets out that “partial loss of such areas to development can unacceptably erode either their individual integrity and function or the integrity of our wider blue and green infrastructure”, and as such a robust justification is required. • In the assessment of this application careful consideration should be given to parts (a) and (e) of Policy 81. The application site is a minor part of the overall Page 6
Page 7
Classification: OFFICIAL OSPA however an assessment requires to be made in terms of whether the development would affect the integrity of the overall OSPA as well as the character and amenity value within the village. Whilst this part of the OSPA does not appear to provide a functional link through the wider OSPA due to the presence of a watercourse, prior to the recent removal of trees it contributed towards the integrity of the green infrastructure and associated amenity value. ABC Roads Authority Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 19.09.2024 No objection, subject to conditions regarding formation of access and drainage. Further clarification confirms that parking bays and turning/manoeuvring space is not required if site is to be used as private car storage (rather than publicly accessible car parking). All vehicles required to enter and exit site in forward gear. Ministry of Defence Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 27.09.2024 No objection SEPA Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 29.08.2024 Below threshold for comment, advised to refer to consultation standards Environmental Health Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 - No Response Flood Risk Consultants Date Consulted: 29.08.2024- No Response (D) HISTORY: Planning Enforcement 21/00049/ENOTH3 – Unauthorised Use of Land for the storage of vehicles [Open] Planning Application Adjacent site 20/01822/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse and public realm enhancements [Refused] – Application initially included this site within the red line boundary, but did not form part of the final submission. (E) PUBLICITY: Helensburgh Advertiser Date Published: 12.09.2024 Date of Expiry: 03.10.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 22 representations have been made in response to this application. 2 neutral representations and 20 representations in support of the application are made: Page 7
Page 8
Classification: OFFICIAL Neutral: 1. Nicholas Beevers, Buchanan Castle Golf Club, Buchanan Castle Estate, Drymen, G63 0HX 2. Sarah Borrows, Glenelg Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0AT Support 1. Emily Pullar, 4 Dalandhui Mews, Dalandhi Lane, Garelochhead, G84 0BE 2. Gordon Russell, Achnashie Cottage, Rosneath, G84 0QU 3. Mike Austin, Rosneath Helensburgh G84 0QR 4. Elizabeth Macintosh, 106E Sinclair Street, Helensburgh, G84 9QE 5. D Ross, 2 St Modans Howe, Garelochhead, G84 0DR 6. Amanda Kennedy, 8 Dunivard Place, G84 0AA 7. John Murrin, 105 Feorlon Way, Garelochhead G84 0EB 8. Stewart Dixon, 5 Greenfield Way, Garelochhead G84 0BN 9. Jamie Kjorstad, 1 Feorlinbreck, Garelochhead, G84 0DT 10. Gerard Quigley, 91 Feorlin Way, Garelochhead, G84 0DX 11. Claire Balneaves, 23 Redgauntlet Road, Helensburgh, G84 7TW 12. Steven Street, Tangaroa, Fairfield Gardens, Kilcreggan, G84 0HS 13. R Madden, 16 Almora Drive, Dumbarton, G82 1AE 14. Craig Wilson, 7 Machrie Drive, Helensburgh, G84 9EJ 15. Margaret Johnson, 14 Ferry Road, G84 16. Greig Dixon, 42 Linn Walk, Garelochhead, G84 0DS 17. Catherine Bennett, 2 Bruce Court, Succoth, Arrochar, G83 7BF 18. Mr &Mrs Cowan, The Haven East, Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0DR 19. Sandra Prout, 35 Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0AT 20. George Freeman, Garelochhead Residents Association (two letters of support submitted) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Page 8
Page 9
Classification: OFFICIAL Neutral • To consider the value of the burn as a spawning burn for sea trout. The burn is highly productive for sea trout • An invasive plant management plan is needed to ensure knotweed on the site is managed Officer Comment: This is noted. In consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer a number of species and habitat surveys would be required for development at this site and mitigation in relation to sea trout spawning season This is considered in the assessment below. • Reassurances are required that vehicles will not be washed here, that there is no storage of end of life vehicles or waste from the Applicant’s garage business. • The bank revetment done in 2020 was not initially done under CAR license and we do not know what material was pushed down behind the stone rep-rap which was installed Officer Comment: SEPA confirms that a CAR License was granted and there are no concerns for the work that was undertaken. A copy of the CAR License is also submitted with this application. The storage of end-of-life vehicles on site is not proposed as part of this application. Nonetheless, a planning condition could be applied to ensure environmental and residential amenity. • Any further surface laid on the area is fully permeable and does not increase the flood risk to several private properties downstream. • There can be considerable pressure on the Burn which can overspill its banks until the tide turns. Any increased run-off from the site might be problematic. Officer Comment: suitable materials and construction methods are also advised in the Applicant’s own flood survey report. Materials, drainage and water management could be secured by planning condition. • Can the Council amend the planning section so objections and letters of support be done via the website. Officer Comment: Applications are available for public viewing on the Council’s website, where representations can be made directly to the application. Support • The current land is vacant and derelict and an eyesore. The proposed design would be an improvement to the condition of the land. Officer Comment: The current condition of the land is the result of unauthorised development of a greenfield site by the Applicant. This application seeks to remedy the breach in planning control and proposed design and landscaping improvement. This is discussed further in the assessment below. • The car park is a great use of the derelict land Page 9
Page 10
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comment: Prior to the unauthorised development this land was not derelict or vacant, but a wooded space forming part of the community’s Open Space Protection Area • The erection of a retaining wall would make the area more attractive and give a better first impression to the village. Officer Comment: The proposed design and siting of this application is considered in the assessment below. • Planting woodland to screen the site will only enhance the look of the village and encourage more wildlife Officer Comment: The application proposes some landscaping and planting in a bid to mitigate the harm to biodiversity following the unauthorised development of this greenfield site. This matter is discussed further in the report below. • The proposed car parking will benefit the community as it will help alleviate parking issues in the village- particularly on the residential streets surrounding the car garage. • It would be hard to make a case against extra parking in the village. Officer Comment: The proposed development is to create/ regularise the private vehicle storage yard for use by the Applicant in association with his garage business. There is no public access or parking proposed. The site has been actively used since 2021 and parking issues associated with the Applicant’s business operations have persisted. In the event this application was approved, there is no planning mechanism to ensure the Applicant does not store vehicles associated with his business on the public road. This matter is discussed further in the report below. • The garage is a vital part of the community, offering jobs and vital car repairs. • This application is from the largest employer in the community and this application is required to support growth of this important business. Officer Comment: This matter is assessed alongside NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development) in the body of the report. • The application site is part of the OSPA that has long been degraded. This site represents only 10/12% of the overall OSPA. Officer Comment: The harm to the OSPA designation and significant conflict with the Local Development Plan is outlined in the report below. The existing ‘degradation’ of the site is a result of the unauthorised development of the site by the Applicant. This retrospective application seeks to formalise this development, with proposed landscaping and boundary treatment. Page 10
Page 11
Classification: OFFICIAL • Although a number of trees were removed, these were of poor quality and self- seeded. The site was also contaminated by Japanese Knotweed. Officer Comment: This matter is considered in the report below. • This site is not considered important to birds and wildlife within the village. Officer Comment: Biodiversity implications are considered in the report. • Garelochhead Residents Association are amazed and disappointed that Planning Officers are likely to recommend refusal, partly because the application site is part of an Open Space Protection Area. • There are a large number of representations supporting this application. There have been no representations from the community objecting to this application Officer Comment: The recommended reasons for refusal are set out in the report. Whilst the proposal is subject to public support, the matters raised are not considered sufficient justification to merit a departure from the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan. In light of the public support for the proposal contrary to officer recommendation, the application has been referred to the Planning, Protective Services, and Licensing Committee (PPSL) for determination. • A site visit by the PPSL Committee is requested. Officer Comment: This application is not considered to be of sufficient complexity or novel issue to merit a site visit by Members. Nonetheless, the decision to complete a site visit prior to the determination of this application remains with Members. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) A Sustainability Checklist ☒Yes ☐No Page 11
Page 12
Classification: OFFICIAL Flood Risk Assessment Report compiled by Gavia Environmental (28/03/2024). • Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) including hydraulic modelling for a proposed development. • According to the SEPA Flood Maps (SEPA 2021), there is high risk (1 in 10 year) of a fluvial flooding across most of the Site associated with McAuley Burn. Overall, the Site building is considered to be at high risk from fluvial flooding. • The Site is not at risk of surface water flooding within the Site boundary. There is an area of medium risk (1 in 200 year) of surface water flooding in association with the dip in the B782 road. Overall, the Site is considered to be at little or no risk from surface water flooding. • There is an indicative high risk (1 in 10 year) of coastal flooding along McAuley Burn. Lower risk events encroach into the Site, however, the majority remains free from flooding. Overall, the Site is considered to be at medium risk from coastal flooding. • The Site is considered to be at little or no risk from groundwater flooding. • There is no indication that hazard from infrastructural sources is present in the nearby area and assuming proposed drainage is designed to relevant standards, infrastructural flooding would typically pose little to no risk. • During the 1 in 200 year event there would be no inundation, outwith McAuley Burn banks, within the Site or roadway. Including climate change allowances, the maximum water level would reach 5.19m AOD and flow back into the roadway. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No Page 12
Page 13
Classification: OFFICIAL (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 81 – Open Space Protection Areas (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses Page 13
Page 14
Classification: OFFICIAL • Planning History • SEPA Flood Mapping • The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal • DPEA PPA-130-2090 (Planning Permission Appeal) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No A number of representations of support have been received in response to the proposal. The recommended decision to refuse this application conflicts with the body of public support. However, this is a local application that conflicts with the development plan, and it is considered that the proposal does not raise complex or novel issues that require discussion by way of hearing. As such, it is considered unlikely that a pre-determination hearing would add significant value to the decision-making process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Open Space Protection Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: N/A Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☒Yes ☐No Page 14
Page 15
Classification: OFFICIAL See assessment below re removal of woodland and relevance to the proposed development. Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The Proposal This application seeks to regularise the existing unauthorised use of land as a vehicle storage yard. The proposed use is required to support the Applicant’s garage business located within the centre of Garelochhead. This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (case reference: 21/00049/ENOTH3). An application was not encouraged given the clear and significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. The Site This is a prominent site that sits at the junction with the B872 Whistlefield Road towards Portincaple to the North and the B833 to the Rosneath Peninsula to the south. The site is within the Bendarroch Park Open Space Protection Area which encompasses land to the north of the B833 and land to the south. The site has not been previously developed and is a greenfield site. Design & Siting The proposed low stone boundary and planting would improve the current condition of the land and help to lessen the existing visual harm of the vehicle storage yard in line with accepted design principles. However, the storage of vehicles at this prominent site in an incongruous use within the surrounding woodland and greenspace. The loss of the visual amenity afforded by the greenfield site is not considered to be outweighed by the proposed design improvements. There is therefore a conflict with Placemaking principles set out in the Local Development Plan. Biodiversity The site is bounded on two sides by the McAuley Burn. Native riparian edge woodland frames the southern bank of the Burn and, prior to its removal, connected with the native woodland of the proposed development site. Whilst trees have also been removed from the adjacent land, there still exists substantial woodland habitat Page 15
Page 16
Classification: OFFICIAL to support localised nature networks and those of the riparian corridor within and alongside the Burn. The proposed fragmentation of the OSPA and development of this site is likely to disrupt localised nature networks contrary to the Local Development Plan. However, there is the potential to secure compensatory planting and biodiversity enhancement plan by Condition to create and strengthen localised nature networks and to mitigate the impact of the development. Open Space Protection Area The development site is relatively modest in size and scale within the Settlement Area; however, the proposal comprises greenfield development within a designated Open Space Protection Area, without sufficiently meeting the exceptions set out within LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). The proposed greenfield development would constitute a loss of amenity open space, that would have an adverse impact upon biodiversity, and which fails to respect the landscape character of the area. It is considered that the built development and highly visible use of vehicle storage has a significant impact upon the amenity value of the site and the wider OSPA, contrary to the Local Development Plan. Economic Policy Other than the land being in the Applicant’s ownership there is no explanation or justification as to why the greenfield development of this site is required. Nor is it adequately explained how the existing garage site is insufficient to support the Applicant’s business operations, or how the additional storage space in this location would support the business. In turn, this application fails to demonstrate the requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development), contrary to the Local Development Plan. Conclusion Whilst the proposed improvements to the existing unauthorised development will enhance the condition of the site, there remains significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. Letters of support have been submitted from local residents encouraged by the proposed improvement of the condition of the site and the opportunity to alleviate parking concerns within the Settlement centre. However, the proposed greenfield development is to create a private vehicle storage yard for the use of the Applicant and presents no discernible wider public benefit to justify the departure from the Local Development Plan. The development site is within a designated Open Space Protection Area as set out in LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). The proposed development would contribute to the fragmentation of the OSPA and actively devalues the amenity value of the greenspace, and of the wider OSPA. The proposal does not give rise to wider economic benefit, and it has not been adequately demonstrated that this development accords with NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). The proposed development conflicts with the Local Development Plan, with no significant material considerations to justify this departure. For the reasons set out Page 16
Page 17
Classification: OFFICIAL in the proposed Reasons For Refusal (below), it is recommended that planning permission should be refused. A full report is provided in Appendix A. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be REFUSED: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 01.11.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 01.11.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 17
Page 18
Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01249/PP 1. The proposed development presents significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings); LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas); Policy 04 (Sustainable Development); and Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas): a) The greenfield development is not allocated for this proposed use, contrary to NPF4 Policy 09. b) The proposed use on greenfield site is not compatible with the surrounding land use and designation as Open Space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 01. c) The proposed use does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land and would devalue the amenity open space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 04. d) The proposed development would lead to fragmentation of the OSPA to the detriment of visual amenity and character of the area and of the wider designation, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. 2. There is significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 26 (d) (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development): a) The site is not allocated for Business and Industry use, and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP, nor that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area contrary to NPF4 Policy 26 (d) and LDP2 Policy 22. b) It has not been adequately demonstrated that the development proposal meets the terms of LDP2 Policy 22 (b). Page 18
Page 19
Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01249/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. The Proposal 1.1 This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (case reference: 21/00049/ENOTH3). This application seeks to regularise the existing unauthorised use of land as a vehicle storage yard and the creation of an access and laying of hardstanding. This application also proposes the erection of a boundary wall and landscaping. The storage of vehicles is required to support the Applicant’s garage business located within the Garelochhead centre. 2. The Site 2.1 The site is located in the Settlement Area of Garelochhead at the junction of Whistlefield Road (B872) from the North and the B833 southbound towards the Rosneath Peninsula. The west and south of the site is edged by the McAuley Burn. The site is within the Bendarroch Park Open Space Protection Area which encompasses land to the north of the B833 and land to the south. The Applicant also owns an area of the OSPA designated land to the south of the site, although this is not included within a blue line boundary within the application. The site has not been previously developed and is a greenfield site. 3. Design & Siting 3.1 This is a prominent site that sits at the junction with the B872 Whistlefield Road towards Portincaple to the North and the B833 to the Rosneath Peninsula to the south. Previously the site contributed to the tree-lined entrance to the settlement centre from this direction, with woodland on either side of the B872 creating an attractive green buffer zone between residential properties to the west and Garelochhead centre to the east. Currently, the site is secured by the long-term use of Heras fencing with hard standing facilitating the informal storage of vehicles on site. 3.2 The proposed low stone boundary wall would provide a uniform boundary treatment to this side of the road, continuing the stone wall at the road bridge and that of the adjoining land (telephone exchange). The wall would also mirror the existing low stone wall on the opposite side of the road, improving the overall street scene and thoroughfare into Garelochhead centre. 3.3 The proposed low stone boundary and planting will certainly be an improvement on the current condition of the land and help to lessen the existing visual harm of the vehicle storage yard in line with much of the design principles set out within NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking) and Policy 10 (Design). However, the proposed design must be considered against the condition of the land prior to unauthorised development occurring. The storage of vehicles at this site in an incongruous use within the surrounding woodland and greenspace, at such a prominent location. The loss of the visual amenity afforded by the greenfield site is not considered to be outweighed by the proposed design improvements. 3.4 As set out within NPF4 Policy 14, development proposals that are detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places will not be supported. It is considered that the proposed development is detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area owing to the loss of green open space; and does not accord Page 19
Page 20
Classification: OFFICIAL with all six qualities of successful places in terms of being Sustainable, Pleasant, and Healthy. 3.5 There also exists a conflict with LDP2 Policy 05 as the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding land use of open green space. The proposed use does not appropriately respond to the natural environment as the loss of natural space to form a vehicle storage yard for the main garage business located elsewhere cannot be viewed as a sustainable use of this site. 3.6 Further, through a number of site visits completed over the past 18 months, it has been often observed that the site is at near full capacity of approximately 20 vehicles. It is unclear how the site would accommodate 30 designated spaces, turning and manoeuvring space, and planting of trees and shrubs as indicated in the submitted plans within the limitations of the site. Potential revisions to the submitted plans, along with a more detailed landscaping plan, would help to clarify the capacity and parking arrangements possible at the site. 3.7 The loss of amenity value through the development of the greenfield land in this prominent location is not outweighed by the proposed design improvements of the site. There is therefore a conflict with Placemaking principles set out in the Local Development Plan within NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking). 4. Biodiversity and Nature Networks Woodland 4.1 Historical mapping shows that in June 2018 the site was comprised of dense woodland. Between then and 2021 the land has been cleared of all trees and hardstanding installed. In the Supporting Statement it is explained that the removal of woodland predates the unauthorised development and was required for the treatment and removal of Japanese Knotweed. It is argued that the removal of the woodland was not undertaken to facilitate this development and so should not be a consideration in the determination of this application. 4.2 Removal of woodland does not amount to development in itself; nor does the treatment and removal of an invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed. The Applicant has confirmed that the Knotweed was treated by chemical spraying. In the absence of any further information, it is unclear how or why the treatment of Knotweed required the wholesale removal of woodland from the site. The proposed use is clearly incompatible with tree cover on the site and could only be facilitated by its removal. The woodland provided significant amenity value to the Settlement, recognised by virtue of the OSPA designation. Without development the site could reasonably be expected to regenerate over time, with natural woodland restoration. Therefore, the relevant tree and woodland removal policies of the LDP should be considered. 4.3 As set out in the LDP2 Policy 77 (Forestry, Woodland, and Trees), there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting our woodland and removal of woodland resources will only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Similarly, NPF4 Policy 06 (Forestry, Woodland, and Trees) does not support development proposals that have an adverse impact on native woodland of high biodiversity value or involve the fragmentation or severing of woodland habitats. 4.4 The perceived poor quality of the woodland as noted in the Supporting Statement has not been demonstrated within the application. As noted by the Biodiversity Officer, the proposed tree planting is an improvement on the current condition of the site however, there is still a lack of connectivity, and it is recommended that the native woodland on either side Page 20
Page 21
Classification: OFFICIAL of the site be continued through to meet one another. Were this application to be taken forward, a more detailed landscaping plan and potential compensatory planting would be required to offset the harm to biodiversity. Biodiversity 4.5 The site is bounded on two sides by the McAuley Burn. Native riparian edge woodland frames the southern bank of the Burn and, prior to its removal, connected the native woodland of the proposed development site. Whilst trees have also been removed from the adjacent land (also within the OSPA), there still exists substantial woodland habitat to support localised nature networks and those of the riparian corridor within and alongside the Burn. 4.6 As noted by the Biodiversity Officer, prior to unauthorised development the site had suitable habitat present for European Protected Species (EPS) and Protected Species (PS). No information has been submitted to demonstrate that the site was appropriately surveyed to ensure the presence of EPS or PS prior to the woodland removal, treatment of Knotweed and subsequent development of the site. The Officer advises that had this application not been submitted in retrospect they would expect to have tree, species, and habitat surveys to help assess the biodiversity value of the site. As the site has been largely cleared of vegetation (a grassed perimeter to the river banks remain) the information required from these surveys is not available. 4.7 It is also noted that a representation made on behalf of the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust indicates that the Burn is a valuable spawning site for sea trout. Were the application to be progressed, a relevant survey for the Burn would be required to ensure the appropriate measures were in place to preserve and enhance the habitat as required. 4.8 In the application it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development preserves or enhances local habitats within and around the site. Similarly, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a negative impact upon existing green and blue infrastructure or would not result in the fragmentation or loss of integrity of existing green networks; contrary to NPF4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure), and LDP2 Policy 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure). 4.9 As noted by the Development Policy Officer, prior to the recent removal of trees the site contributed towards the integrity of the green infrastructure and associated amenity value. The fragmentation of the OSPA and active development of this site is likely to disrupt localised nature networks. This is contrary to NPF4 Policy 01 (Tackling the climate and nature crises), which seeks to promote nature-positive places and promotes nature recover and restoration. Similarly, in the absence of any information regarding existing habitats and biodiversity, this proposal is considered to be in conflict with NPF4 Policy 03 (Biodiversity), and LDP2 Policy 73 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity). 4.10 The presence of woodland was of important visual amenity value to the local area. Without the proposed development, it is expected that the site would in time be reclaimed by nature and still provide an important visual amenity value to Garelochhead and preserve the function/ amenity value of the OSPA. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the aims of NPF4 Policy 06 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees), LDP2 Policy 77 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees). However, were this application to be taken forward, there is the potential to secure compensatory planting and enhanced landscaping by Condition to restore and strengthen localised nature networks and to mitigate the impact of the development, in line with LDP2 Policy 78 (Woodland Removal). As there is potential for mitigation of the harm, the conflict with Biodiversity and Woodland policies is not considered a determining factor in the assessment of this application. Page 21
Page 22
Classification: OFFICIAL 5. Greenfield Development & Designated Open Space Protection Area 5.1 The development site is relatively modest in size and scale within the Settlement Area, however, as it comprises greenfield development within a designated Open Space Protection Area, without sufficiently meeting the exceptions set out within the relevant Policies, the proposed development is contrary the Local Development Plan. 5.2 Firstly, LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) outlines that development proposals within Settlement Areas would normally be acceptable provided it is within an area of land allocated for that purpose; it is the redevelopment of a brownfield site; is of an appropriate scale and fit, and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area in terms of density, scale, massing design, and access arrangements. The proposed development must also comply with all relevant LDP2 Policies. As the land carries an Open Space designation and is not a brownfield site, the proposal does not accord with this policy. 5.3 In addition, NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) indicates that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless allocated for development or explicitly supported by policies in the local development plan. The site is within the settlement boundary of Garelochhead as defined within LDP2 and is not allocated for the proposed use. 5.4 Further, LDP2 Policy 04 (Sustainable Development) supports development where sustainable development principles are demonstrated. It is argued by the Applicant that the proposed use of this site would alleviate parking, congestion, and road safety issues within the Settlement centre. The proposed vehicular parking site however would be private with no public parking or access. It is considered that parking issues caused by the Applicant through existing business practices could be resolved with better site/business management rather than through the proposed greenfield development upon land unconnected to the main business. The proposed use of the site is therefore of limited community benefit and would not justify a departure from this Policy. 5.5 As noted by the Development Management Policy Officer, an assessment in terms of whether the development would affect the integrity of the overall OSPA as well as the character and amenity value within the village if required in the determination of this application. The proposed development does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land in accordance with LDP2 Policy 04. Significantly, the proposed greenfield development contributes to the loss of amenity open space (g), has an adverse impact upon biodiversity (h), and fails to respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of the settlement, contrary to the aims of this Policy. 5.6 As noted in LDP2 (preamble to policy 81), a greenspace amenity area includes ‘Accessible and non-accessible areas that provide visual amenity functions in and around our settlements such as maintaining setting, identity or character or by providing visual green spaces within more built up areas’. The value of open space designations is also set out by the Scottish Government Planning Advice Note (PAN) 65 (Planning and Open Space), which informs the Local Authority’s policy response to the provision and enhancement of open spaces. The PAN notes that open spaces help to define landscape or townscape structure, provides a range of opportunities for recreation and leisure, and link and create wildlife habitats. 5.7 The site is protected from built development by LDP2 Policy 81 (e) (Open Space Protection Areas) unless the proposed development can demonstrate no loss of the amenity value and alternative provision of equal benefit and accessibility can be made available. Page 22
Page 23
Classification: OFFICIAL 5.8 In the Supporting Statement it is argued that LDP2 Policy 81 exception (a) applies- specifically where the development proposal ‘involves a very minor part of the site and in either case would not affect its integrity and continued existing use or amenity value’. In the Statement it is argued that the development results in ‘the loss of less than 5% of the total area of the OSPA, which historically was never land over which the public were able to gain access’. The applicant also argues that the loss of ‘such a small part of the overall OSPA’ would not affect its overall integrity as the majority of the OSPA would remain fully accessible by members of the pubic for the purposes of informal recreation. The proposed development however is not ancillary to the principal use of the site, and whilst the site may represent a relatively small section of the wider OSPA, the proposal directly affects its integrity as an OSPA site and the amenity value provided by the valuable greenspace. I cannot therefore agree that the requirements of exception (a) of LDP2 Policy 81 are met. 5.10 Exception (e) listed in the policy refers to greenspace amenity areas which is directly applicable to this site and the proposed development. However it has not been adequately demonstrated that there would be no loss of amenity value, nor has an alternative provision of equal benefit and accessibility been made in the submission of this application. Rather, it is considered that the built development and highly visible use of vehicle storage has a significant impact upon the amenity value of the site and the wider OSPA, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. This conflict is considered to be of significant weight to warrant a refusal to this application. 5.11 I note also the recent DPEA Appeal Decision (case reference: PPA-130-2090, Connel, Oban Argyll and Bute) made on 15th August 2024 concerning proposed development within an OSPA. The appeal was dismissed and planning permission refused. In the Decision Notice the Reporter agreed that the piecemeal erosion, or fragmentation of the OSPA at that location, would threaten the overall integrity of the network, contrary to LDP2 Policy 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) and NPF4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure). 6. Economic Policy 6.1 Under LDP2 Policy 22 (b) (Economic Development) development proposals outwith the preferred areas for business and industry are required to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites within the preferred areas. In cases where the need had been demonstrated the development is also required to (a) reflect the character of an area; (c) avoid greenfield sites where brownfield sites is available in close proximity; and (d) will not erode residential amenity of the area. Similarly, NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) requires Applicants to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP; and that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area (d). 6.2 It is argued in the Supporting Statement that ‘The implications for the applicant’s ongoing business operations, should the use of the land for the parking/storage of vehicles not be allowed to continue, is a significant material consideration’. A further Supporting Statement clarifies that that the Applicant’s garage business is ‘Autopoint Fastfit’. Desk-based research shows the garage business is located at 175 Main Street within the centre of Garelochhead. It has been advised by the Applicant that at any one time parking for 30 vehicles is required- a maximum of 15 for sale and 15 for servicing. The garage comprises a large garage/workshop with ample vehicular parking to the front, side and rear in addition to the work bays and space within the large workshop. However, the proposed use of this site is for the storage of 30 vehicles, which would meet the total need of parking spaces for the garage. 6.3 Other than the land being in the Applicant’s ownership there is no explanation or justification as to why the greenfield development of this site is required. Nor is it adequately explained how the existing site is insufficient to support the Applicant’s business operations, or how the additional storage space in this location would support the business, other than Page 23
Page 24
Classification: OFFICIAL reducing the existing congestion caused by the Applicant’s business operations. No further information has been provided to demonstrate how the viability of the business is dependent upon the proposed change of use of land at this site. 6.4 Whilst the viability of an establish business may be a material consideration, there is limited information submitted to demonstrate compliance with/ or justification for divergence from the Local Development Plan. The application before me fails to address policy requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). The conflict with this policy is of significant weight to amount to a refusal to this application. 7. Residential Amenity 7.1 The use of the site for vehicle storage is relatively passive and presents no concerns for harm to residential amenity in terms of noise, smells, vibrations, odours, or light pollution in accordance with LDP2 Policy 14 (Bad Neighbour Development). Whilst the application suggests that customers can collect vehicles following MOT/servicing, these works will be undertaken at the garage and this site used for car storage only. It is expected that the number of customers attending to collect vehicles from this site rather than the garage itself would be minimal and that the purpose of the site would primarily be for the passive storage of vehicles. This in turn presents no concerns regarding residential disturbance through intensification of use. There are however significant concerns regarding the harm to the visual amenity value of the site for the local area. 8. Road Safety & Parking 8.1 It is noted that there is sufficient distance between the nearby road junction and the site access, with adequate visibility entering and exiting the site. There are no objections from the Roads Authority- subject to standard conditions set out in the Consultation Response- and no identifiable harm to road safety from this proposal to raise conflict with the Local Development Plan. 8.2 A representation made on behalf of the local Residents Association suggests that the site could be regulated by ensuring individual vehicles are not kept on site for a prolonged period of time and that a register of stored vehicles is made available for inspection to be secured by planning condition. I believe the intention is to ensure that the site is not used for end of life vehicles or long term open air storage and therefore likely degradation of vehicles on the site. Were this application to have been taken forward, it is likely that a planning condition to regularise the type and longevity of vehicle storage on the site would be appropriate to ensure no end of life vehicles were stored or dismantled on site in the interests of residential and visual amenity and environmental protection. 9. Flooding 9.1 SEPA flood maps highlight that the site is at a high risk of fluvial flooding with partial risk of future coastal flooding. A flood risk report has been submitted with the application to suggest that the level of likely flooding is unlikely to have any significant effect on the site as a vehicle storage yard, and that in the event of a flood event waters are likely to quickly retreat to the Burn. The proposed development does not meet the criteria exemptions under NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) in that it does not involve the redevelopment of an existing site; is not a water compatible use; and is not essential infrastructure required for operational reasons. However, as the proposed development does not introduce a vulnerable use to the site which minimise potential harm to the public in the event of a flooding event. The conflict with flood risk policies could be addressed through appropriate construction methods, landscaping, and water management programme to ensure appropriate drainage and management to ensure no hardstanding and vehicles/ vehicles parts including fuel and oil do not escape into the Burn in the event of a flood. Page 24
Page 25
Classification: OFFICIAL 9.2 The conflict of NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and LDP2 Policy 55 (Flooding) could be minimised through appropriate drainage, water management, and construction quality secured by planning condition, and is thus not a significant determining factor in the assessment of this application. 10. Conclusion 10.1 This retrospective application seeks planning permission to regularise the change of use of land for the storage of vehicles in association with the Applicant’s garage business located within the centre of Garelochhead. Whilst the proposed improvements to the existing unauthorised development will enhance the condition of the site, there remains significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. 10.2 The proposed design improvements would enhance the current condition of the site, and the proposed use presents no obvious harm to residential amenity in terms of noise disturbance, vibrations, smells, etc. Harm to biodiversity and green and blue nature networks are not fully addressed by this application, although further mitigation and improvement could be secured through planning condition were this application to be progressed. No concerns have been raised in regards to road safety with no objections from the Roads Authority. Whilst the site is liable to flooding, it is not considered that the proposed use would put people at risk and potential environmental damage could be mitigated through better design and water management that could also be secured through planning condition. 10.3 A number of letters of support have been submitted from local residents encouraged by the proposed improvement of the condition of the site and the opportunity to alleviate parking concerns in the village by relocating the vehicles associated with the Applicant’s business to this site. However, the proposed greenfield development is to create a private vehicle storage yard for the use of the Applicant and presents no discernible wider public benefit to justify the departure from the Local Development Plan. 10.4 The development site is within a designated Open Space Protection Area as set out in LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). Whilst the designation does not prevent all development within the OSPA, developers are required to meet the exemptions set out in the Policy to robustly justify any departure. The proposal does not adequately meet the exceptions to development and is in clear conflict with the Policy. The proposed development would contribute to the fragmentation of the OSPA and actively devalues the amenity value of the greenspace, and of the wider OSPA. 10.5 The proposal does not give rise to wider economic benefit and it has not been adequately demonstrated that this development accords with LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). There is limited information submitted to meet the terms of and to justify a departure from the Development Plan in respect to the development of the greenfield and OSPA site for the purpose of business operations unconnected with the site. 10.6 The proposed development is in conflict with the Local Development Plan, with no significant material considerations to justify this departure. It is therefore recommended that this application is refused planning permission: 1. The proposed development presents significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings); LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas); Policy 04 (Sustainable Development); and Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). a) The greenfield development is not allocated for this proposed use, contrary to NPF4 Policy 09. Page 25
Page 26
Classification: OFFICIAL b) The proposed use on greenfield site is not compatible with the surrounding land use and designation as Open Space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 01. c) The proposed use does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land and would devalue the amenity open space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 04. d) The proposed development would lead to fragmentation of the OSPA to the detriment of visual amenity and character of the area and of the wider designation, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. 2. There is significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 26 (d) (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). a) The site is not allocated or Business and Industry use and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP, nor that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area contrary to NPF4 Policy 26 (d) and LDP2 Policy 22. b) It has not been adequately demonstrated that the development proposal meets the terms of LDP2 Policy 22 (b). Page 26
Page 27
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 O 1:1,000 0 9.5 194.75 Meters Location Plan Relative to Planning Application: 24/01249/PP Page 27
Page 28
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 29
Ref: ABH1/2009 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PROCEDURE NOTE FOR USE AT HYBRID DISCRETIONARY HEARING HELD BY THE PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE 1. Hybrid meetings are those that will involve a physical location and facilitate attendees joining virtually if they wish. 2. The Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support will notify the applicant, all representees, supporters and objectors of the Council’s decision to hold a Hearing and to indicate the date on which the hearing will take place. The hearing will proceed on that day, unless the Council otherwise decides, whether or not some or all of the parties are represented or not. Statutory consultees (including Community Councils) will be invited to attend the meeting to provide an oral presentation on their written submissions to the Committee, if they so wish. Details on how interested parties can access the meeting will be referenced within the same notification. 3. On receipt of the notification the applicant, all representees, including supporters and objectors will be encouraged to appoint one or a small number of spokespersons to present their views to concentrate on the matters of main concern to them and to avoid repetition. Parties who wish to speak at the meeting shall notify Argyll and Bute Council no less than 2 working Days (excluding public holidays and weekends) prior to the start of the meeting. This is to facilitate remote access (see note 1) and the good conduct of the meeting. 4. The Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support will give a minimum of 7 days’ notice of the date and time for the proposed Hearing to all parties. 5. The hearing will proceed in the following order and as follows. 6. The Chair will introduce the Members of the Committee, confirm the parties present who have indicated their wish to speak and outline the procedure which will be followed. It is therefore imperative that those parties intending to speak join the meeting at its commencement. 7. The Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth’s representative will present their report and recommendations to the Committee. Page 29
Page 30
Ref: ABH1/2009 8. The applicant will be given an opportunity to present their case for approval of the proposal and may include in their submission any relevant points made by representees supporting the application or in relation to points contained in the written representations of objectors. 9. The consultees, supporters and objectors in that order (see note 1), will be given the opportunity to state their case to the Committee. 10. All parties to the proceedings will be given a period of time to state their case (see note 3). In exceptional circumstances and on good cause shown the Committee may extend the time for a presentation by any of the parties at their sole discretion. 11. Members of the Committee only will have the opportunity to put questions to the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth’s representative, the applicant, the consultees, the supporters and the objectors. 12. At the conclusion of the question session the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth’s representative, the applicant, any consultees present, the supporters and the objectors (in that order) will each be given an opportunity to comment on any particular information given by any other party after they had made their original submission and sum up their case. 13. If at any stage it appears to the Chair that any of the parties is speaking for an excessive length of time he/she will be entitled to invite them to conclude their presentation forthwith. (see note 3) 14. The Chair will ascertain from the parties present that they have had a reasonable opportunity to state their case. 15. The Committee will then debate the merits of the application and will reach a decision on it. No new information can be introduced after the Committee begins to debate. 16. The Chair or the Governance Officer on his/her behalf will announce the decision. 17. A summary of the proceedings will be recorded by the Committee Services Officer. NOTE (1) If you wish to speak at the hearing you will require to notify the Committee Services Officer no less than 2 working Days (excluding public holidays and weekends) prior to the start of the meeting. This is to facilitate remote access if required and the good conduct of the meeting. Page 30
Page 31
Ref: ABH1/2009 In the event that a party wishes to speak to a visual presentation, this requires to be sent to Committee Services no less than 2 working days (excluding public holidays and weekends) before the commencement of the Hearing; this will not be shared with other parties prior to the meeting but will ensure its availability for the commencement of the Hearing. The Committee Services Officer will control the slides under explicit instruction from the spokesperson(s), it would therefore be helpful if the slides were individually numbered. It would also be helpful if the file size of the presentations is kept to a minimum to mitigate against any potential IT issues – guidance can be provided if required. If it is your intention to join the hearing to observe the proceedings, please advise the Committee Services Officer no less than 2 working Days (excluding public holidays and weekends) prior to the start of the meeting to facilitate remote access if required. (2) Councillors (other than those on the Committee) who have made written representations and who wish to speak at the hearing will do so under note 1 above according to their representations but will be heard by the Committee individually. (3) Recognising the level of representation the following time periods have been allocated to the parties involved in the Hearing. For the avoidance of doubt the time allocated will be per party and will include for example all supporters/objectors in the half hour slot except where additional time is agreed by the Chair. The representative of the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth – not more than half an hour The Applicant - not more than half an hour. The Consultees - not more than half an hour. The Supporters - not more than half an hour. The Objectors - not more than half an hour. (4) The purpose of the meeting is to ensure that all relevant information is before the Committee and this is best achieved when people with similar views co-operate in making their submissions. (5) Everyone properly qualified as a representee recorded on the application report who wishes to be given an opportunity to speak will be given such opportunity subject to the requirements for notice herein. (6) Should, for any reason, Members of the Committee who are joining remotely lose connection or have any technical issues during the meeting, they will be asked to contact the Governance or Committee Support officer, if possible, by email or instant message. A short adjournment may be taken to try and resolve the connection. If the Members of the Committee are unable to re-join the meeting and a quorum still exists then the meeting will continue to proceed. If a Page 31
Page 32
Ref: ABH1/2009 quorum does not exist the meeting will require to be adjourned. For the avoidance of doubt Members of the Committee have to be present for the whole hearing in order to take part in the decision. (7) Should, for any reason, participants joining the hearing remotely lose connection or have any technical issues during the meeting, a short adjournment may be taken to try and resolve the connection. In the event the connection cannot be restored within a reasonable timeframe consideration will be given to the continuation of the meeting. (8) Members of the Committee joining remotely will use the hands up function to indicate to the Chair when they wish to speak to ask a question or make a comment. This function will be monitored by the Chair and by governance staff in attendance. (9) Where a Councillor who is a member of the PPSL has made or wishes to make a representation (on behalf of any party) during the meeting in relation to the application under consideration, they should make their position clear to the Chair and declare an interest. Having done so, they may, at the appropriate time, make the relevant representation and then must retire fully from the meeting room prior to deliberation of the matter commencing. A Councillor, not a member of the PPSL, may make a representation (on behalf of any party) during the meeting in relation to the application then must retire fully from the meeting room prior to deliberation of the matter commencing. (10) The Council has developed guidance for Councillors on the need to compose a competent motion if they consider that they do not support the recommendation from the Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth which is attached hereto. I:data/typing/virtual planning hearings/procedure note Page 32
Page 33
Ref: ABH1/2009 COMPETENT MOTIONS • Why is there a need for a competent motion? o Need to avoid challenge by “third party” to local authority decision which may result in award of expenses and/or decision being overturned. o Challenges may arise from: judicial review, planning appeal, ombudsman (maladministration) referral. Expenses may be awarded against unsuccessful parties, or on the basis of one party acting in an unreasonable manner, in appeal/review proceedings. • Member/Officer protocol for agreeing competent motion: o The process that should be followed should Members be minded to go against an officer’s recommendation is set out below. • The key elements involved in formulating a competent motion: o It is preferable to have discussed the component parts of a competent motion with the relevant Member in advance of the Committee (role of professional officers). This does not mean that a Member has prejudged the matter but rather will reflect discussions on whether opinions contrary to that of professional officers have a sound basis as material planning considerations. o A motion should relate to material considerations only. o A motion must address the issue as to whether proposals are considered consistent with Adopted Policy of justified as a departure to the Development Plan. Departure must be determined as being major or minor. o If a motion for approval is on the basis of being consistent with policy reasoned justification for considering why it is consistent with policy contrary to the Head of Development and Economic Growth’s recommendation must be clearly stated and minuted. o If a motion for approval is on the basis of a departure from policy, reasoned justification for that departure must be clearly stated and minuted. Consideration should be given to holding a PAN 41 Hearing (determined by policy grounds for objection, how up to date development plan policies are, volume and strength of representation/contention) o A motion should also address planning conditions and the need for a Section 75 Agreement. o Advice from the Scottish Government as contained within Planning Circular 3/2013: Development management procedures on the definition of a material planning consideration is attached herewith However, interested parties should always seek their own advice on matters relating to legal or Page 33
Page 34
Ref: ABH1/2009 planning considerations as the Council cannot be held liable for any error or omission in the said guidance. Page 34
Page 35
Ref: ABH1/2009 DEFINING A MATERIAL CONSIDERATION 1. Legislation requires decisions on planning applications to be made in accordance with the development plan (and, in the case of national developments, any statement in the National Planning Framework made under section 3A (5) of the 1997 Act) unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The House of Lord’s judgement on City of Edinburgh Council v the Secretary of State for Scotland (1998) provided the following interpretation. If a proposal accords with the development plan and there are no material considerations indicating that it should be refused, permission should be granted. If the proposal does not accord with the development plan, it should be refused unless there are material considerations indicating that it should be granted. 2. The House of Lord’s judgement also set out the following approach to deciding an application: - Identify any provisions of the development plan which are relevant to the decision, - Interpret them carefully, looking at the aims and objectives of the plan as well as detailed wording of policies, - Consider whether or not the proposal accords with the development plan. - Identify and consider relevant material considerations for and against the proposal, and - Assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the development plan. 3. There are two main tests in deciding whether a consideration is material and relevant: - It should serve or be related to the purpose of planning. It should therefore relate to the development and use of land, and - It should fairly and reasonably relate to the particular application. 4. It is for the decision maker to decide if a consideration is material and to assess both the weight to be attached to each material consideration and whether individually or together they are sufficient to outweigh the development plan. Where development plan policies are not directly relevant to the development proposal, material considerations will be of particular importance. 5. The range of considerations which might be considered material in planning terms is very wide and can only be determined in the context of each case. Examples of possible material considerations include: - Scottish Government policy, and UK Government policy on reserved matters - The National Planning Framework - Scottish planning policy, advice and circulars - European policy - A proposed strategic development plan, a proposed local development plan, or proposed supplementary guidance Page 35
Page 36
Ref: ABH1/2009 - Guidance adopted by a Strategic Development Plan Authority or a planning authority that is not supplementary guidance adopted under section 22(1) of the 1997 Act - A National Park Plan - The National Waste Management Plan - Community plans - The Environmental impact of the proposal - The design of the proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings - Access, provision of infrastructure and planning history of the site - Views of statutory and other consultees - Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters 6. The planning system operates in the long term public interest. It does not exist to protect the interests of one person or business against the activities of another. In distinguishing between public and private interest, the basic question is whether the proposal would unacceptably affect the amenity and existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public interest, not whether owners or occupiers of neighbouring or other existing properties would experience financial or other loss from a particular development. Page 36