Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 19 March 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 19 March 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 12 March 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 19 MARCH 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. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 14 January 2025 (Pages 3 - 14) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 January 2025 at 11.00 am (Pages 15 - 18) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 January 2025 at 2.30 pm (Pages 19 - 22) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 22 January 2025 at 3.30 pm (Pages 23 - 24) (e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 February 2025 at 10.00 am (Pages 25 - 30) (f) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 February 2025 at 10.30 am (Pages 31 - 32) Public Document Pack
Page 2
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) (Pages 33 - 76) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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) (Pages 77 - 102) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS (Pages 103 - 104) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth REPORTS FOR NOTING 7. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1992: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW (Pages 105 - 108) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support 8. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PUBLIC LOCAL INQUIRIES (a) UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 36 EARRAGHAIL RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT DECISION (Pages 109 - 114) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth (b) UPDATE ON SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 36 CLACHAIG GLEN WIND FARM DECISION (Pages 115 - 118) 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
Page 3
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on TUESDAY, 14 JANUARY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Malwina Kolodziejczyk, Applicant Joanna Millar, Applicant’s Solicitor Claire Treasurer, Objector Hugh MacLean, Objector Myra MacLean, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (M AND P KOLODZIEJCZJK, FLAT 1, 10 STEVENSON STREET, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Malwina Kolodziejczyk joined the meeting by MS Teams along with her Solicitor, Joanna Millar. Claire Treasurer and Hugh MacLean, Objectors, also opted to proceed by way of video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Mr MacLean’s wife, Myra MacLean, co-owner of their property, also attended by MS Teams and it was noted that she would speak on behalf of Mr MacLean. Martin McGhie, Objector had intimated that he would be unable to attend today and he submitted a statement which he had requested be read out. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 7 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support for their application. APPLICANT Joanna Millar spoke on behalf of the Applicant. She commented that quite a number of issues raised were covered in the Officer’s report. She referred in turn to each of the objections raised by Mr MacLean and said that she had noted that the issue with regard to the display of the notice had been addressed. She also noted that there would be no issue with the keys as arrangements would be made to hand over keys in person to guests staying at the property. This would either be done by the Applicant herself, her husband, or someone else approved by her to meet guests, for example, the person who cleaned the property. She also advised that if there was an issue with an increase in utility charges this would also be addressed by the Applicant. She referred to concerns raised about smoking in the stairwell and advised that guests would be advised that they would not be allowed to smoke in any common areas and written guidance on this would be provided. Guests would also be asked to respect the common areas eg no littering, keeping it clean and tidy, etc. She said that any accidental fire call outs would be addressed by the Applicant and information about the fire alarms would be provided in the property and explained to guests on arrival. She referred to one of the Objectors raising concerns about fire alarms going off on a daily basis and she advised that this was not something that was happening. She said that the Applicant had offered to place guidance in the bathroom in respect of keeping doors shut to avoid the steam from showers setting off the fire alarm. Regarding the suitability of the property, she advised that there was no issue with the suitability of the property and that it was worth noting that no objections nor negative representations had been submitted from Police Scotland, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the Planning Department or Environmental Health and the conclusion of the report was that the property was suitable for a short-term let. She then referred to concerns raised by Miss Treasurer about noise and commented that there appeared to be a presumption that there would be more noise from a short-term let. She said there was no basis for that. She acknowledged that there may be more comings and goings in terms of people but stated that the fact was there was no noise issue. She said the Committee had to take account of the information that was before them just now and not that a short-term let may cause more noise, and that there would need to be a specific issue within the property that could lead to more noise. She advised that Mr McGhie had indicated that because the Applicant did not live there, there would be less care taken or investment made on the property. She advised that this was not the case. She said that the Applicant had invested time and money on the property and that it would always be kept to a high standard as guests expected everything to be perfect when they arrived. She said that in respect of short-term lets, it was her experience that the turnover of repairs were done very quickly. She advised that the concerns raised by Objectors had been taken on board. She said that this was a small flat and that bookings for stag and hen parties would not be Page 4
Page 5
accepted. She said that the property currently held long-term tenants and that it was run very well, was well managed and that this would continue. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mrs MacLean asked how many street door keys would be issued to guests. She stated that it could not be guaranteed that the guests would always leave and arrive back at the property together. She voiced her concerns that if each guest did not receive a key this could lead to the buzzer on the door being used which would disturb residents. Ms Millar advised that the Applicant would ensure that enough keys were made available to guests and a view would be taken when meeting guests on arrival regarding how many keys were required. She also advised that guidance would be provided to guests regarding the door buzzer. Mrs MacLean sought and received confirmation from Ms Millar that all the residents would receive a contact telephone number to enable them to report any issues to the Applicant. It was noted that in the first instance if an issue was reported the Applicant would contact the guests directly and if required, would attend the property. She advised that not every issue would require the immediate attendance at the property. Mrs MacLean sought assurance that the Applicant would attend immediately to reset the fire alarm should it be set off as a result of actions by a holidaymaker. She also asked if the Applicant would ensure the automatic roof light was closed and any mess in the stair well was cleared up. Ms Millar advised necessary steps would be taken by the Applicant if the fire alarm going off was caused by a guest. She pointed out that the Applicant lived about 2 minutes away from the property. Mrs MacLean commented that the Applicant lived more than 2 minutes away. She advised that if the fire alarm went off it had to be dealt with immediately. She referred to payments having to be made to the fire alarm company. She said she did not believe the Applicant knew about the fire alarm system. Ms Millar advised that the Applicant has confirmed to her that she would make arrangements to speak to the neighbours to find out about the fire alarm system. Information would also be provided to guests. She said again that the Applicant lived close by and that she also had others that assisted her with the management and operation of the property. Mrs MacLean referred to the communal areas and commented that the Applicant had shown no interest to date in these areas. Ms Millar advised that if there was an increase in utility charges this would be addressed by the Applicant. She pointed out that if matters were not resolved this could be reported to the Licensing Standards Officer or Enforcement Officer. Mrs MacLean referred to waste disposal and pointed out that there were no marked bins for each flat. She said there were only large bins behind a screened area and that any recycling had to be taken to Tescos. She asked if the Applicant would make guests aware of this. Ms Millar confirmed that written guidance would be made available to guests and would be brought to their attention on arrival along with a number of other requirements for the building. Mrs MacLean referred to maintenance of the communal areas and advised that the stairwell had recently been painted. She advised of concerns that walls would get marked with luggage and sought and received confirmation from Ms Millar that if there was any damage from guests this would be addressed by the Applicant. Page 5
Page 6
Mrs MacLean referred to parking and stated that there was a great deal of congestion and lack of parking in the area. Ms Millar advised that she did not have an instruction from the Applicant about parking as this was not an issue raised by Objectors in their submissions. Ms Millar suggested that questions should be restricted to matters raised by the Objectors in their submissions. Mrs MacLean sought clarification on what type of insurance the Applicant had for the property. Ms Millar said this was not an issue brought up in the original objections but she would bring it to the Applicant’s attention. Councillor Amanda Hampsey sought confirmation from Officers on the questions that could be asked. The Council’s Solicitor, Mr Walker, advised that matters raised by Objectors should relate to what was in their written submissions. Ms Millar confirmed that she was not refusing to answer questions. She confirmed that the Applicant had messaged her to say that there was on street parking which had to be paid for and further away there may be parking that did not require payment. She said that she could not confirm the status of the insurance as it was not an issue that had been brought up before but it was something she would advise the Applicant to look into in relation to the Objector’s concerns. Mrs MacLean referred to the current long-term tenant living in the flat since 2017 and commented that tenants would normally have protected rights. She suggested that if this short-term let licence was granted it would enable the eviction of a long-term tenant. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that the matter of a tenancy was a private matter between the tenant and landlord. Mrs MacLean referred to legislation regarding the loss of residential accommodation to tourist accommodation. Ms Millar advised that this was a planning matter. OBJECTORS Claire Treasurer Miss Treasurer referred to photographs showing the close proximity of the other flats to the proposed short-term let property and to the small shared communal landing. She advised that this was a small block of flats occupied by live in owners and long-term tenants and the common areas were part of the home of the long-term residents. She said a short-term let would be incompatible and harmful to the amenity of all the properties. She referred to disturbance due to the regular turnover of guests taking luggage in and out. She referred to congestion in the close and front door on change over days and to the risk of doors being knocked and the buzzer being pressed. She said that some of the residents worked from home. She noted that it had been stated that holidaymakers would have no need to venture further into the building. She said there would be nothing to stop them from doing so. Regarding the proposal, she said her biggest concern was the safety and security of herself and the other long-term residents in the building. She said she was a single woman living on her own right next door to the proposed Airbnb. She advised that she has lived in her flat for 15 years, feeling safe and secure. She said that she believed she would lose this feeling if the proposal went ahead. She said she would feel uncomfortable Page 6
Page 7
with the thought of people she did not know coming and going, in and out of the building with a key. She advised that she would also worry that guests would not shut the communal entrance door. She said her confidence level in them would not be the same as other trusted long-term residents. She referred to the Applicant advising that guests would be told how to behave and be respectful and said there would be no guarantee that everyone that came would do so. She said that this was a block of flats in the town centre next to pubs. She said that people behaved differently when they had a drink and that just because they were adults did not mean they would behave or adhere to rules. She advised that noise and damage to the building or an increase in repairs requiring to be done was a concern. She said she felt she would never have a complete peace of mind. She said tourists were always a greater risk and generally less considerate of their surroundings than the people that lived there. Myra MacLean Mrs MacLean advised of being extremely concerned about this proposal. She advised that since the Applicant purchased the flat she had not shown any interest or made enquiries to the other residents about who was responsible for the fire alarm system and the maintenance and repairs of the building. She advised that the Applicant had shown no concern when the main door needed repair, when communal lights needed replacing, or when the sewage pipe required to be repaired. She referred to comments made by the Applicant in response to their objections that Airbnb guests would be the same as visitors to residents and said this was not true. She advised that residents would have control over who came into their property and how they behaved as they would be there living in the property and would know who their visitors were. She advised that the building contained a number of small flats and that everyone knew one another. There was a young couple on the top floor with a baby and they required good exit facilities. She referred to congestion on changeover days. She referred to working in the holiday accommodation business in the past and said it was not easy to keep a holiday let to a high standard. She expressed her concern that guests could ruin the quality of life of the people living in the building. She referred to parking being an issue. She asked the Committee to consider their concerns very carefully as granting this licence could ruin the quality of life of the 5 other residents. She said she believed that the Scottish Government brought in this legislation to address the very issues being talked about today. She said there was a need for more residential homes than tourist accommodation. Martin McGhie The Committee Manager read out the following statement from Martin McGhie, Objector: I note the arrangements proposed by the applicant to manage security and potential disruption and the council's recommendation to approve the licence. I remain of the view that the use of Flat 1 as a holiday let will allow the owner to maximise revenue from their property at the cost of the other residents, who consider this their home. Page 7
Page 8
It appears the council have made the decision with little or no consideration to the impact of this unfair intrusion on the lives of the remaining 5 residents. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Ms Millar confirmed she had no questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Kain referred to page 13 of the Agenda pack which stated that a housing burden was placed on all the properties and said “each unit shall be used as a private dwelling and for no other purpose”. He asked if this was true, how could this property become a short-term let. Councillor Green advised that he believed this issue had been addressed by Officers when it came up at a previous hearing. He said that this was a matter for parties to resolve separately and that they could raise a legal action on that basis and that this was not a matter for the Committee as it was not a licensing matter. Councillor Kain referred to the additional conditions and suggested that they could be open to interpretation. He said that it was his view this was unsatisfactory for the tenants. He sought comment from the Applicant. Ms Millar said that the conditions had to be enforceable. She referred to other licensing regimes and said the Council had to ensure conditions in place were policed and enforced. She said that if there was a breach of a licensing condition this could be brought to the attention of the Licensing Standards Officer so that the matter could be investigated. She advised the conditions were worded to cover a broad spectrum of possible events. Councillor Brown referred to the civil issue and asked if this licence was granted and a civil case was brought by the Objectors, and their complaints upheld, would this mean the licence was null and void or would another hearing be required to revoke the licence. Mr Walker advised that this was a separate issue and did not directly affect the licensing authority. In terms of today any issue regarding planning or title deeds should be placed to one side. Councillor Brown asked the Objectors why the fire alarm was so sensitive that it was set off by a shower. She asked if this could be looked at. Miss Treasurer advised that if the bathroom door was left open the steam would trigger the alarm in the hall. She said the alarm was interlinked between the 6 flats. She said they may need to look at re positioning the alarm to stop this happening. Councillor Howard said she was worried about the burden on the property. She asked where the Committee stood if they went against a decision already taken by the Council. She asked if the Committee would be flouting the rules. Mr Walker advised that planning had made no objection to this application. Councillor Howard said it seemed odd to go against a decision made by the Council at another time. Councillor Green advised that it was his understanding that if there was a planning issue that would be flagged up but it would not prevent the license from being granted but could prevent the licence being used until the planning issue was resolved. Mr Walker confirmed this to be correct and said it was a separate issue. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Millar that the Applicant lived 1.8 miles from the premises and it took her 5 minutes to drive there from her home. Page 8
Page 9
Councillor Philand referred to the additional conditions proposed and asked the Objectors what it was about these conditions they were not happy with. He asked if there were any other conditions that would satisfy their concerns. Miss Treasurer said she would feel uncomfortable with strangers constantly coming and going. She said she was a single woman living on her own and that she would find it very disconcerting to constantly hear people coming in and out and meeting different groups of people on the stairs. She said she would not know who they were or how they would behave when coming back from the pub at all hours. She said that telling them how to behave would not mean they would do so. She also referred to concerns about being disturbed by doors being knocked on and the buzzer being pressed. Mrs MacLean said she did not believe the conditions proposed would adequately address their concerns and would not adequately protect their surroundings and the homes of all the residents. She said she did not personally live there but had a close relationship with their tenants that lived in this small haven. She said that is what a home should be and that she understood this licence regime was brought in to ensure people had this haven to come home to at night and to not worry about who was there. She said the young couple upstairs left their baby in the pram outside Miss Treasurer’s door while they took shopping upstairs and said that they would no longer be able to do that. She referred to the frequent turnover of guests to an Airbnb that could accommodate up to 4 people. She said that life was too precarious now to be worrying about strangers in your own home. She said they should be entitled to feel safe whether entering their home or walking up to their front door. She said they did not know what to do to protect themselves anymore and that they were at their wits end. She referred to Miss Treasurer living next door to the property on her own. Miss Treasurer advised that she found the whole situation very stressful. She said she wanted to live in a residential block knowing her neighbours. She said this would take away the community feel and that she found it threatening. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr Walker that this was not a planning control area and so not relevant for the purpose of today. He said that in terms of licensing, the routes that could be taken if a licence condition was breached could be by enforcement notice and revoking or suspending a licence. If a licence condition was breached the authority would be duty bound to look at the licence again. SUMMING UP Objectors Claire Treasurer Miss Treasurer said that this had been stressful for the long-term residents as it would adversely impact their amenity. The issue was sharing a small communal landing on the first floor. She said she believed this would be a short-term let too close in proximity to residents and would not be suitable as an Airbnb. She said her main concern was the security and privacy of the other residents. Myra MacLean Mrs MacLean said her concerns were basically the same. She urged the Committee to read the short-term let licence supplementary guidance for licensing. Page 9
Page 10
Applicant Ms Millar said that she understood the concerns of the residents but the difficulty here was that the guidance and legislation was not in place to stop short-term lets. She advised that the short-term let licence legislation was there to make sure they were in place. Planning and licensing guidance and legislation were very different and it was important to look at the licensing position and what was before everyone today. She said it was not enough to say there were concerns that there may be noise or other risks. She said the Committee were obliged to look at what was there. She advised that the report from the Council team confirmed that this was a suitable property. There were no objections from statutory consultees. There was no suggestion that the premises did not comply with fire building controls. There was no issue with the current operation of the premises. She said that the Applicant had taken all concerns raised on board and had confirmed to her in writing during the meeting that she would attend any call outs if the fire alarm was set off by guests and that she would make sure she understood how the fire alarm system operated. She referred to concerns raised about not knowing who would be coming into the communal area and she said the same could be said for visitors to other residents e.g. handy men, cleaners etc. She said there appeared to be a generalisation about how holidaymakers would behave. She said the concerns raised were not based on what was happening now. She advised that the Applicant met the criteria and there was no question that the property was not suitable and no question that she was not a fit and proper person. She said that planning and title matters were separate issues and not relevant today. She also said that it had been established that the Applicant lived close to the premises and would attend if there were issues. She said there have been no issues with the long-term let and no issues were expected with the short-term let. She advised that the licence could not be refused based on what might happen. She referred to the mandatory conditions set by the Scottish Government and the additional conditions recommended in the report. She said if there were any issues if the licence was granted then action could be taken. She advised that the Applicant would provide guidance in the property for guests, she would provide her contact details to residents, she would investigate the issue with insurance, and would familiarise herself with the fire alarm system. She referred to the actions that could be taken if there was breach of a licensing condition. She advised that it was important to keep within the guidance and legislation. She said there was no basis to refuse the licence and she moved that it should be granted. With the exception of Mrs MacLean, the Chair established from all parties that they had received a fair hearing. Mrs MacLean said she had not received a fair hearing as she felt she was stopped for saying all she wanted to say and this was noted. DEBATE Councillor Armour advised that to his mind this property should not be considered for an Airbnb but that was not why the Committee were here today. He said the Committee were here to decide whether or not this licence should be granted. He said he felt a property Page 10
Page 11
like this should not be a short-term let but the Committee could not do anything about that. He said that he felt that legally everything had been done the way it should be done but morally he questioned whether the property was suitable. He advised that legally the Committee had no option but to approve. Councillor Kain said he agreed with much of what Councillor Armour had said. He advised that he did not agree that the Committee should go ahead and grant the licence. He said that it seemed to him that the Council was going against itself. He referred to planning having a burden on the property and if the licence was granted this would go against that burden. He questioned whether there would be a potential liability within the Council and said he would like that clarified. He said that if there was, and he lived there, he would want that breach to be addressed. He said he thought there was an inconsistency with natural justice and that it was a nonsense. He advised that he would agree with Councillor Armour that this property should not be granted a licence. Councillor Green said the Committee had already heard about how much should be taken account of in terms of planning matters. He question whether any decision today would influence any subsequent planning matter. He asked if this licence was granted would it clear the way for planning to be granted as well. Mr Walker advised that planning law was completely separate and was not relevant for consideration today. He advised that it would not be wise for Members to make decisions based on planning or any perceived ideas of conjecture or liability from that. He said that was out with the scope of the licensing regime. Councillor Kain said he thought there was an inconsistency in natural justice and that the Council could be putting itself in a position of liability. Councillor Armour referred to the housing emergency in Argyll and Bute and said that this would be perfect property that could be rented out long-term rather than as an Airbnb. He said that could not be looked at today but the Committee, as a Planning Committee, needed to look at that going forward. He referred to the photographs that Miss Treasurer presented showing how close the doors were to each other and he advised that it brought it home to him that this was not a suitable place to have a holiday let. He said he was not sure if the Committee could do anything about that today. Councillor Amanda Hampsey said she agreed with Councillors Armour and Kain. She referred to the burden on the property and the housing emergency, pointing out that Argyll and Bute were the first to declare this in Scotland due to a lack of housing in the area. She referred to the legislation and guidance that had to be adhered to and said she could find nothing within this that would offer the Committee an opportunity to reject the application. She said she felt sorry for the Objectors that they were in this position. She said she understood that people had to make money. She said that it was a good opportunity and good business model for people in the property business to have Airbnbs, certainly in Oban, where there were many tourists. She said she would not like to live in that building if there was an Airbnb there. She advised that she could not see anything within the standards that would allow the Committee to reject this application. Councillor Howard said she agreed with what had been said by her fellow Councillors. She questioned whether the Committee were being disingenuous ignoring the planning burden on the property. She asked if a decision on this application could be continued to get this clarified. Page 11
Page 12
The Licensing Standards Officer, Ms MacLeod, advised that the application would have to be determined by 22 February 2025. Councillor Brown said she agreed with what had been said. She commented that this issue came up time and time again and that the onus was on the Objectors to take civil action. She said these things needed to be sorted out before it got to this stage. She said she agreed with short-term lets but she advised that there was a need to ensure the Committee were doing right by everyone. She questioned whether or not the Committee would have a definite view on this from legal and planning before the next meeting. Ms MacLeod advised that planning had not objected to the application and that she was unsure if their position would change as they would have the same information before them. She advised that the civil matter had been looked at and the position with that would not change. Councillor Kain said he would like to put forward a Motion to continue consideration of the application in order to get a competent Motion to refuse. Councillor Philand said he was of a similar view to Councillors Kain and Howard. He questioned what would happen if it was found at a civil court that a planning law had been broken. He noted hearing from legal that it would be competent to take a decision now. He questioned whether or the not the Committee would be content knowing they could be breaching a planning law. Councillor Howard said she thought the Committee needed to get clarification from planning on why they did not submit an objection when they had previously stated that the property was only suitable for residential use. Councillor Daniel Hampsey said he agreed very strongly with the comments made by Councillors Howard and Philand. He said there was a need to look at the wider picture and consider how this goes forward. Councillor Amanda Hampsey advised that in light of comments made she would be open to considering a continuation of consideration of this application. Councillor Green said his own opinion was based on the information provided today. He referred to the policy in place regarding short-term lets and how the Committee had dealt with previous applications. He said he did not think there was anything in front of the Committee today that would support not granting the licence. He advised that he could not say he supported changing the property from a long-term let to a short-term let. He advised that based on the policy the Committee had, and the way the Committee have chosen to apply that, he said he did not think, from the information before them today, that the application could be refused and so, on that basis, he would be in favour of granting the licence. Motion To agree to grant a short-term let licence. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Mark Irvine. Page 12
Page 13
Amendment To agree to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting prior to 22 February 2025 to allow Members to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion to refuse the application. Moved by Councillor Andrew Kain, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Green Councillor Armour Councillor Irvine Councillor Brown Councillor A Hampsey Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Hardie Councillor Howard Councillor Kain Councillor McCabe Councillor Philand Councillor Wallace The Amendment was carried by 10 votes to 2 and the Committee resolved accordingly. DECISION The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting prior to 22 February 2025 to allow Members to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion to refuse the application. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted) Page 13
Page 14
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 15
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JANUARY 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 Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader – Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh & Lomond Emma Spence, Planning Enforcement Officer Helen McCallin, Local Biodiversity Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. MINUTES a) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 13 December 2024 was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 December 2024 at 10.00 am was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 December 2024 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 December 2024 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 December 2024 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. f) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 December 2024 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. Page 15 Agenda Item 3b
Page 16
4. 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) This application was considered by the PPSL Committee on 20 November 2024 and it was agreed to continue consideration to a future meeting to allow Members to seek advice on the preparation of a competent Motion to approve the application. The Planning Officer gave a brief summary of the proposal and advised of a further 22 representations lodged in support of the application, which were received following completion of the original report of handling. These additional representations of support did not raise any new matters that had not already been addressed in the report of handling The Area Team Leader also advised of a late representation objecting to the proposal. It was recommended that planning permission be refused in line with the reasons appended to the original report of handling. The Chair established from the Members of the Committee that they had no competent Motion to approve the application to bring forward for consideration. Motion To agree to continue consideration of this application and hold a pre-determination hearing. Moved by Councillor Fiona Howard, seconded by Councillor Amanda Hampsey. Amendment To agree to refuse planning permission for the reasons appended to the original report of handling. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Gordon Blair. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Brown Councillor Armour Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Blair Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Green Councillor Howard Councillor Hardie Councillor Philand Councillor Wallace The Motion was carried by 6 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Page 16
Page 17
DECISION The Committee agreed to: 1. hold a pre-determination hearing on a hybrid basis within the Helensburgh and Lomond Civic Centre; 2. hold an informal site visit with Planning Officers on the same day prior to the start of the pre-determination hearing; and 3. request Planning Officers to present video footage of the site at the pre-determination hearing. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 November 2024 and supplementary report number 1 dated 9 January 2025, submitted.) Councillor Andrew Kain left the meeting during consideration of, and prior to a vote being taken on, the foregoing item. 5. CONFIRMING A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT LINTON, LINESIDE WALK, RHU Consideration was given to a paper recommending that the Tree Preservation Order on a Beech Tree in the garden of Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu is confirmed. Decision The Committee agreed to confirm the Tree Preservation Order in accordance with Section 160 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for area marked on the plan detailed in Appendix 1 of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 22 January 2025, submitted) 6. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ3 2024/25 A report providing an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ3 2024/25 was considered. Decision The Committee considered and noted the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 10 January 2025, submitted) Page 17
Page 18
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 19
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JANUARY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor Calum Fox, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Graham Hardie, Mark Irvine and Andrew Kain. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (C FOX, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by audio call and Calum Fox joined the meeting by telephone. Before proceeding the Council’s Solicitor, Mr Walker, provided an update to the Committee to advise that with reference to paragraph 2.1 of the report, Mr Fox had now been granted a taxi car licence. The Chair then outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Fox advised that he had been a taxi driver for around 10 years and had previously held a taxi car licence on 2 occasions. He said that the reason he was applying today was down to an oversight that he did not renew his existing licence on time. He advised that he was an experienced person and that he knew the town well and how it worked. He took the opportunity of raising some concerns as a taxi driver. He referred to the recent increase in fares that was out for consultation and advised that due to his taxi driver Page 19 Agenda Item 3c
Page 20
licence and taxi car licence expiring he’d not had the opportunity to contribute his thoughts to that process. He referred to the previous increase, which he said, was then followed by COVID and Brexit, and advised that both of these events had caused a significant impact to rising costs in the local community. He said that he felt everyone was sleep walking into a shortage of taxi drivers and taxi cars. He said he was not sure of the exact number of plates that have been approved and advised that there were no more than 10 cars currently in operation. He said that was not a problem at this time of the year but during the summer months there would be an issue. He referred to people coming off buses and trains, having to wait up to an hour for a taxi. He said there was no shelter except at the bus stop and if people sheltered there, they lost their place in the taxi queue. He pointed out that when he started taxi driving 10 years ago, many of the cars on the road were brand new and he said he was now seeing cars that were 4 or 5 years old, with high mileages, being used and abused as taxis. He said this was down to rising costs. He asked if there could be a Council intervention in terms of exploring if there was a way to have all taxi cars electric and to have an electric power point at the rank. He said that most of the taxis were diesel and they were second or third hand and therefore cheaper, as well as cheaper to run. He also referred to lots of different taxi companies in the town, which, he said, could lead to confusion for tourists and locals. One taxi company may be busy, with some regulars unable to book a taxi and not having the contact details of another company. He asked if the Council could take back the control of taxis with one central number for the whole town. He also referred to two or three companies looking to develop Apps like Uber, which, he said, could also lead to mess and confusion. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Armour said that the Applicant had raised some interesting points and although not for today, suggested that the points raised could be looked at in the future. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr Fox referred to carelessly letting his licences lapse and asked if consideration could be given to alerting licence holders to advise when their licences were about to expire. Mr Fox confirmed that he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Daniel Hampsey agreed with Councillor Armour that the Applicant had raised some good points and said he hoped that the Members could consider taking these on board. He also referred to the administration error in respect of the Applicant allowing his licences to lapse and advised that depending on the impact on resources, he hoped that this was something the Officers could look into going forward. Councillor Green agreed that the information the Applicant had provided was useful and he hoped that Officers would be able to consider these. He advised that he did not have any problem with the application and, in view of the issues the Applicant had raised, in terms of demand for taxis, he hoped that by granting this licence that would improve the situation. Page 20
Page 21
DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Fox and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted.) Page 21
Page 22
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 23
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JANUARY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Allan McCandlish, Objector Steve McIntyre-Stewart, Objector Samantha Border, Interested Party 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Andrew Kain and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Fiona Howard declared a non-financial interest in both applications as she knew one of the interested parties well. She left the meeting at this point. The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following 2 items of business on the grounds that they were likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 respectively of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF PRIVATE HIRE CAR LICENCES The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For these hearings Allan McCandlish, Objector, opted to proceed by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Steve McIntyre-Stewart, Objector, opted to proceed by audio call and joined the meeting by telephone along with Samantha Border. There were 2 Private Hire Licence Applications before the Committee for consideration and before proceeding further the Chair invited the Legal Manager to provide an update to the Committee. Page 23 Agenda Item 3d
Page 24
The Legal Manager, Ms Mair, referred to a previous meeting on 18 December 2024 when the Committee agreed to a request by the Applicant to continue these applications to a future meeting to allow him the opportunity to seek legal advice. Ms Mair advised that the Applicant had made a further request to continue these applications to February to allow him to progress matters with his Solicitor and she gave the reasons for this request. Ms Mair also advised of further information that had been received from the Applicant and one of the Objectors, which Officers would require time to consider, and she recommended that the Committee agree to this request for a further continuation on the basis that this would be a final continuation, with the hearings for each application going ahead in February 2025. (a) Tartan Wolf Group, Cove, Helensburgh (Nissan Leaf) The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting in February 2025. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted.) (b) Tartan Wolf Group, Cove, Helensburgh (Skoda Superb) The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting in February 2025. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted.) Page 24
Page 25
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Malwina Kolodziejczyk, Applicant Joanna Millar, Applicant’s Solicitor Claire Treasurer, Objector Hugh MacLean, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (M AND P KOLODZIEJCZJK, FLAT 1, 10 STEVENSON STREET, OBAN) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Malwina Kolodziejczyk joined the meeting by MS Teams along with her Solicitor, Joanna Millar. Claire Treasurer and Hugh MacLean, Objectors, also opted to proceed by way of video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. This short-term let hearing was continued from 14 January 2025 to allow Members time to seek advice on a competent Motion to refuse the application. Only those Members present at the hearing on 14 January 2025 could take part in the proceedings today. The Chair explained that the hearing would continue from point 4j of the short-term let hearing procedure – the Committee will debate and determine the application in the presence of Applicant/Objector, and he invited Members to present a Motion. DEBATE Councillor Kain, who had seconded the Motion to continue consideration of the application, confirmed that he did not have a competent Motion to refuse the application. Page 25 Agenda Item 3e
Page 26
He advised that his mind had not changed in this regard and asked for more time to draft a Motion for consideration. The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting for 10 minutes at 10.10 am to allow Councillor Kain to consider wording for a competent Motion to refuse the application. The Committee reconvened at 10.20 am with all those Members present as per the sederunt. Councillor Kain read out his Motion, which was deemed not to be competent by Officers. The Council’s Solicitor, Mr Walker, advised that the view of Legal Services remained unchanged from the previous meeting. He referred to the recommended conditions in the report and said that the Committee had agreed that these were reasonable, proportionate and enforceable. He advised that the Motion put forward by Councillor Kain to refuse the application could be challengeable. Councillor Green sought a further explanation why Councillor Kain’s Motion was not competent. Mr Walker explained that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. He advised that some of the concerns raised were out with the scope of the licensing regime. He said that planning matters were dealt with by a separate regime and that it would not be competent for the Committee to base their decision on these as they were not licensing matters. He advised that on that basis the Motion would not be legally competent. Councillor McCabe questioned why this application was coming to the Committee if they could not make a different decision from that recommended in the Officer’s report. She referred to the small space between neighbours’ doors and she advised of being aware of parties being held at other Airbnb establishments. She said she felt sorry for the neighbours who would not know who was coming into their close. Councillor Kain said it was his view there was a mismatch within the Council structures and that there could be foreseeable consequences. Councillor Hardie expressed his concern about the remit of this Committee. He said that as it stood they had approved every short-term licence application that had come before them. He questioned the point of these hearings. Councillor Green advised that he was minded to take a poll of Members in attendance as to whether they would be minded to support Councillor Kain’s Motion, notwithstanding the advice about its competency, or would they be minded to approve the application. He explained that on the basis of what had happened at the previous meeting, he believed he may be the only Member that would support a Motion to approve the application and he advised that he would not be willing to do that. It was noted that it was the view of Legal that there was no basis for a competent Motion to refuse. It was also noted that if Members did not take a decision today there would be a deemed grant of the licence. Councillor Howard referred to the title deeds, which had been topic of conversation at the previous meeting. She stated that she would not want to grant this application. Page 26
Page 27
Mr Walker explained that a private action would have to be taken forward by parties with regard to the title deeds. Councillor Howard suggested that a decision was taken at some point by planning when the building was built which stipulated what the accommodation could be used for and this was detailed in the title deeds. Mr Walker advised that title deeds could be very complex and were considered under separate legislation. He said it would be ultra vires for the Committee to take the title deeds into consideration when making their decision. The Council’s Licensing Standards Officer, Ms MacLeod advised that planning matters were entirely separate from title conditions and that they were not made nor worded by planning and that these were written by legal representatives. She also advised that planning matters could not be considered as part of the licensing regime. She said that if a planning condition was breached planning could take enforcement action. She confirmed that planning had been consulted on this application. She stressed that title deeds and planning matters could not influence the Committee’s decision. Councillor Brown said she felt the onus should be on the applicant to ensure due diligence in respect of making sure title deeds supported the proposal. Councillor McCabe referred to page 13 of the Agenda pack where it said “The Title Deeds state categorically that Burdens were placed on all of the 6 units by the local authority at the time of planning consent when the building was extended upwards and converted into flats or units”. The burden stated “each unit should be used as a private dwelling house and for no other purpose.” Councillor Armour said that there did not seem to be anything that could be done to go against the recommendation. He advised that he did not think this property was suitable for a short-term let. He advised that as much as he would like to refuse the application, if there was any way of doing that, he did not think the Committee had any option but to approve the application. He said that he felt the whole issue needed to be looked at and that the concerns of the Committee had been highlighted well at this meeting. Councillor Green advised that as the Chair of this Committee, he was quite clear about how the short-term let policy was working and he had noted that the Committee were not minded to support this application. He advised that if he moved the recommendation and the application was approved it would give the appearance that the Committee were happy with the situation. Councillor Howard said she would like to move that the Committee not grant this application just now and seek clarification on all the issues raised regarding the short-term let policy. She said that could not see the point of the application coming to the Committee for consideration if there was no Motion to be found to refuse the application. Councillor Armour sought clarification on what was meant by a deemed grant. Ms MacLeod explained that the application was made on 23 May 2024 and as a new operator, the local authority had 9 months to process the application. She advised that if the application was not processed within that timescale it would be a deemed grant, with the licence being granted for 12 months subject to the Scottish Government mandatory conditions, but with no other additional conditions recommended by the local authority. Councillor Armour said that he could not agree to doing nothing if that meant the licence was granted with only the Scottish Government mandatory conditions. Page 27
Page 28
Councillor Armour said that he would be minded to support the application very reluctantly as he did not think it should be granted without the additional conditions recommended by the local authority. Councillor Green advised that he supported the comments made by Councillor Armour. Councillor Hardie said that he also supported Councillor Armour and Councillor Green. He said that Officers needed to look at the whole process in respect of the issue with planning and title deeds and to clarify this to the Committee. Councillor Howard said it was ridiculous that it had taken 9 months to bring the application to Committee. She commented that if the Committee did not grant the application today and it became a deemed grant with no additional conditions attached, this would mean in a year’s time it would come back to the Committee for consideration. She said it would be very foolish of the Applicant if they did not put these additional conditions into effect, knowing that the application would come back to the Committee in 12 months time. Councillor Kain said he would reluctantly go along with the view to grant the application. He stressed that the whole issue needed to be sorted. He said it was ridiculous that the onus was on others to take civil action regarding title deeds. Councillor Green asked if the Committee could include in their decision a request that the Committee’s concerns regarding the policy be taken on board and that it be reviewed to ensure that they did not find themselves in this situation again. He said there was no point as a Committee, meeting to discuss these applications if the Committee could not have regard to the wider impact of an application on a building or neighbour. Mr Walker advised that he would be happy to follow this up out with the meeting. He advised that this request could not be included in the Motion as only a decision on the application could be taken today. Councillor McCabe said she was not happy to have to agree the recommendation and that she would like this noted. She understood that the Committee were having to approve the application as, if not, it would be a deemed grant without the additional conditions. She said that if this was the way it was going she would not want to be involved in these meetings in the future. The Governance Manager, Shona Barton, advised that it would be competent to note the concerns of the Committee regarding the policy but it would not be competent to ask for a review of the policy. She advised that Officers could arrange a session, setting out for Members the relevant provisions and legislation. Councillor Green advised that a discussion needed to be had around how these hearings could have a genuine debate and possibly a different outcome, the session should not be about how Members need to be satisfied with approving every application. Councillor Armour advised that he had previously expressed his concern around the policy in place for short-term lets. He asked that the Applicant to seriously consider looking at a longer term let rather than a short-term let for this property. Councillor Kain advised that the contradictions between policies of the Council needed to be looked at and not a patronising review on how the Council should react to policy. Page 28
Page 29
Councillor Green advised that he would continue to raise with Officers that the Committee would like more than a training session. Councillor McCabe said she would not be attending a training session to tell her how to say yes. DECISION The Committee:- 1. agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Mr and Mrs Kolodziejczjk subject to the additional conditions detailed in the supplementary report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property and it was noted that they would receive written notification of this within 7 days; and 2. noted that their concerns raised regarding the short-term let policy would be taken on board by Officers. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager and supplementary report number 1, submitted) Page 29
Page 30
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 31
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2025 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gordon Blair, Audrey Forrest, Amanda Hampsey, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A TAXI CAR LICENCE (T SINGH, HELENSBURGH) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by written submission. A copy of this was circulated to the Committee in advance of the hearing in a supplementary Agenda pack. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited comments from Members. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS AND DEBATE The Council’s Solicitor, Mr Walker, advised that it had been previously noted that Mr Singh did not have the correct insurance for his vehicle. This had since been followed up by the Licensing Team and he confirmed that Mr Singh now had the correct insurance. Councillor Armour advised that as there were no objections to this application and having noted that the LVSA survey was a bit out of date, he would be happy to grant this licence. Councillor Brown agreed with Councillor Armour and said that due to no one saying that the Committee were over providing cars in the area, she would be happy to approve this application. Councillor Green also confirmed he would be happy to approve the application. Page 31 Agenda Item 3f
Page 32
DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Mr Singh and noted that he would receive written notification of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 32
Page 33
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 24/00745/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Highland Holidays Proposal: 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) Site Address: Oban Caravan and Camping Park, Gallanachmore, Gallanach Road, Oban 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 • Extensions to existing holiday park (retrospective) • Alterations to the internal layout of existing holiday park (part retrospective) • Siting of 50 permanent units/caravans/lodges (part retrospective) • Repositioning of 6 camping pods • Repositioning of 3 chalets for use as permanent staff accommodation (retrospective) • Siting of water tanks • Provision of private water supply • Installation of sewage treatment system (biodisc) (ii) Other specified operations • Landscaping • Use of land for the provision of 104 touring pitches (for touring caravans, tents and motorhomes • Off Site Road Improvements • Provision of vehicular parking Page 33 Agenda Item 4
Page 34
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: NatureScot E-mail dated 12.06.2024, No formal comments to make as the proposal falls below the threshold for consultation: the site is not within a designated protected area and protected species are not known to inhabit the area Advice offered with regards to landscaping (recommended that the current proposed tree, shrub and plant list is reviewed in full, with non-native species being replaced by native species) and the proposed water treatment plant as this part of the site lies within 50m of a well issue which feeds into the sound of Kerrera, which is part of the Inner Hebrides and Minches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and is protected for its harbour porpoise. Advised that the proposed water treatment plant will be required to be sited/designed/constructed appropriately to eliminate contamination risks. Flood Risk Assessor Report dated 13.06.2024, No objections subject to the provision of a planning condition to ensure that surface water drainage is undertaken in accordance with CIRIA C753 at detailed design stage. Post development surface water runoff should be attenuated to pre-development amounts. The Flood Risk Officer has also advised that Finished Floor Levels (FFLs) of the units/caravans/lodges within the eastern section of the site should be elevated to at least 0.3m above the surrounding ground. Oban Community Council Report received 03.06.2024, objection raised on the grounds that it constitutes a radical change from the currently licensed position and will materially change the nature and scope of the current operation. The Impact of the proposals will be such that a full Environmental Impact Assessment should be requested, along with sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with relevant planning advice regulations. The proposed arrangements represent not only a significant increase in the number of people who can be accommodated on the site but also significantly increases the number of days that the facilities may be used. To suggest that the proposed new 173 ‘units’ are equivalent to the old ‘units’ is misleading. It is impossible to state precisely how many occupants there might be of tents, caravans or motorhomes but the reduction in these from 150 to 104 in favour of an additional 46 4-6 person ‘lodges’ would be expected to lead to a significant increase in the number of people on the site. In addition, the opening of the facility throughout the year, compared with the current limit of 216 days p.a. is likely to dramatically change the overall ‘person days’ that the site supports…. This is not an application for ‘minor extensions’ nor for ‘consolidation’ but, rather, the development of an entirely different scale and nature. This amounts to a new development rather than an extension to an existing business, the development of a holiday village in fact, requiring consideration as a complete redevelopment and, as such, should be supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment. Page 34
Page 35
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Oban Community Council offer their own assessment of the proposed development against National Policy Framework 4 and the Local Development Plan. The points raised by the Oban Community Council will be addressed in Appendix A below. Scottish Water Letter dated 27.05.2024, No objections. Councils Roads Authority Report dated 29.01.2025, No objections subject to conditions with regards to the provision of: • 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 to be provided; • Refuse collection points to be provided at locations easily accessed and serviced by RCV. • Turning heads required within internal roads serving site. Environmental Health Memo dated 05.08.2024, No objections subject to the provision of a condition to ensure that the site is adequately served for water provision and, does not have a detrimental effect on the water supplies of surrounding properties. E-mail dated 11.03.2025 advising that Environmental Health have received a copy of a Caravan Site Licence application for Oban Holiday Park submitted by Highland Holidays. The application requests a licence for 42 Holiday Caravans (made up of 36 static vans and 6 glamping units) and 131 Touring pitches. The period of operation requested is 1st of March to 28th Feb (being assumed to mean open all year). Further advised that Short Term lets Licenses will not be required by those units that fall within the site licence as may be granted. Being already covered by a caravan site licence is one of the exemptions from STL licensing. Advised that any residential units (i.e. permitted to be lived in rather than for holiday use only) these will be required to have a residential site licence – no application has been made in this regard. Where staff are accommodated in caravans then these may also be required to be covered by a residential site licence (depending on number of vans put to such a use). Environmental Health have advised that they have visited the site and did not note any major issues regarding the likely granting of a holiday/touring/site licence. Environmental Health are aware of ongoing concerns with regards to Page 35
Page 36
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL drainage at the site and they will need to further discuss this with Building Standards to ensure that adequate drainage and disposal is put in place during the processing of this site licence application or within a short timescale should it be likely to be granted. Development Policy Consulted for biodiversity comments as no Biodiversity Officer in post when the application was submitted. No comments received. Biodiversity Officer E-mail dated 30.10.2025, No objections. Requested the provision of a detailed tree survey to ensure the protection of trees within the ancient woodland and a protected species survey. Agreed with the observations of Nature Scot with regards to the requirement for the provision of native trees at site. Tree Planting programme requested. Core Paths No response at time of report and no request for an extension of time. Marine and Coastal Policy Officer E-mail dated 30.10.2025, Advised that no comments to make. (D) HISTORY: 23/01723/PP 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), withdrawn 29.01.2024. 02/01292/CLAWU Certificate of Lawfulness - Existing Use (Formation of Steps and Walkway, access to Gangway and Floating Pontoons), ISSUED 16.09.2002. 01/00925/REM Erection of 6 Chalets, granted 30.07.2001. Conditions 2. The proposed chalets shall be used for holiday occupants only and shall not be occupied by any person, family or group of people for more than 3 months in any one calendar year. Reason: In accordance with the use applied for and as the proposed chalets, by reason of their lack of individual curtilages, would be unsuitable for use as permanent residential accommodation. 3. The landscaping shown on the approved pans shall be implemented no later than the first planting and seeding season following the commencement of the Page 36
Page 37
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL development, (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority) and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority for a period of ten years. Any losses of plant species to be included in the landscaping scheme, through disease, weather exposure, neglect or damage, shall be replaced, with equivalent species within one growing season. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to help integrate the proposal into its surrounding landscape/townscape setting. 98/00455/COU Change of use of land to form caravan and camping site, granted 21.05.1998. Conditions 1. The landscaping shown on the approved drawing shall be implemented within the first planting and seeding season following the date of the approval (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority) and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority for a period of ten years. No trees to be included within the landscaping scheme shall be felled and any losses of plant species to be included in the landscaping scheme, through disease, weather exposure, neglect or damage, shall be replaced with equivalent species within one growing season. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity, in order to help integrate the static caravans into the surrounding landscaping setting. 2 The area marked “Area B” on the approved drawings shall only be used between the months of May and September, inclusively, and shall only be used as a camping ground for tents. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity, in order to ensure that there are no caravans or other structures permanently sited within this area. 3. The Area marked “Area E” on the approved drawings shall be used for siting up to a maximum of 15 static caravans only and for no other purpose. 4. The area marked “Area F” on the approved drawings shall be used for siting up to a maximum of 150 tents/touring caravans/motor homes only and for no other purpose. 5. The area marked “Area C” on the approved drawings shall be used as a car park and as a holding area for touring caravans and motor homes and for no other purpose. 6. The area marked “Area G” shall be used as a camping ground for tents only up to a maximum of 15 tents and for no other purpose. Reason: (3, 4, 5 and 6) In order that the Council may effectively control the numbers of and the location of all static caravans and touring caravans, motor homes and tents in order to minimise the impact of the development on the landscape of this part of the Knapdale/Melfort Regional Scenic Area, in accordance with approved Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995 Policy SAS 1 and in the interest of road safety in order that the Planning Authority can maintain control over the level of traffic presented by the development. Page 37
Page 38
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 97/01718/OUT Erection of 6 chalets, granted 26.06.1998. (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 30.05.2024. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 29 objections and 14 expressions of support have been received in response to the application. OBJECTIONS Caroline Dalgliesh, Suil Na Mara, Gallanach Road, PA34 4QH (27.05.2024, 14.06.2024, 30.10.2024) Kenneth MacKenzie, Taigh A' Chaolais, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4PD, (22.05.2024) Dr Alastair Hall, Oir Na Mara, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4PD, (23.05.2024) Matthew Slack, Gylen Park, Kerrera, PA34 4SX, (25.05.2025, 31.05.2024) Mrs Val Hamilton, 3 Dungallan Terrace, Oban, PA34 4PB, (31.05.2024) Mike Morgan, Puffin Dive Centre, Port Gallanach, Oban, PA34 4QH, (03.06.2024) Anne Archer, Sealladh Breagha, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4PD, (03.06.2024) Tim Wright, Gallanachmore Cottage, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4QH, (14.05.2024) Ms Zoe Emma Andrews, Horse Shoe Cottage, Kerrera, PA34 4SX, (22.05.2024) Robert Kincaid, Mount Stuart, Glenshellach Road, PA34 4QJ, (27.05.2024) Fiona Kincaid Mount Stuart Glenshellach Road Oban Argyll and Bute PA34 4QJ (27.05.2024) Helen Miller, Pinetrees, Glenmore Road, Oban, PA34 4PG, (31.05.2024) Nicola Morgan, Puffin Dive Centre, Port Gallanach, Oban, PA34 4QH, (31.05.2024) Dr Ian Reid, 2 Firgrove, Ardconnel Road, Oban, PA34 5DW, (06.06.2024) Paula Baldry, 11Mill Td Wells next the Sea, NR23 1HD, (09.06.2024) Stewart MacKechnie, Pine Trees, Glenmore Road, Oban, PA34 4PG, (09.05.2024, 31.10.2024) E A M Davidson, (no address given), (22.05.2024) Ms Liz Drysdale, 7 Kilbowie Shore, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4PE, (30.05.2024) Mrs Alison Marshall, 5 Kilbowie Shore, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4PE, (29.05.2024) Dr Ann MacNeill, Gallanachmore Cottage, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4QH, (15.05.2024) Mark Walker Adamson, by email, (21.05.2024) Alison MacKenzie, Taigh A Chaolais, Gallanach Road, Oban, (22.05.2024, 11.11.2024, 04.02.2025) Page 38
Page 39
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Janet McCowan ,Tigh An Rhuba, Gallanach Road, Oban, (22.05.2024) Mr Duncan MacEachen, Hyskeir Ferry Croft, Oban, PA34 4SX, (29.05.2024) Mrs Janet Heron, 6 Kilbowie Shore, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4PE, (29.05.2024) Craig Dalgliesh, Suil Na Mara, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4QH, (29.05.2025) Alison Hall, Oir Na Mara, Gallanach Road, Oban, PA34 4PD, (30.05.2024) Martin Stewart, Lenas House, Glenshellach Road, Oban, PA34 4QJ, (10.06.2024) Philip De Iongh, 2A Gallanachbeg, Oban, PA34 4QH, (21.06.2024) SUPPORTERS Craig McBurney, by email, (06.05.2024) Lys Hall , 18 Kilbride Avenue, Dunoon, PA23 7LH, (08.05.2024) E M Hall, 89 Alexandra Parade, Dunoon , PA23 8AH, (08.05.2024) Hilary Bond, by email, (10.07.2024) Laura Kidd, 31 Townsend Drive, Selsey, West Sussex, PO20 0GA, (15.05.2024) Nathan Robertson, 160 Dumbuck Road, Dumbarton, G82 3LY, (14.04.2024) Elle Marshall, by email, (13.05.2024) Scott Leslie, by email, (13.05.2024) Jane McLean, by email, (14.05.2024) Alexander McLean, by email, (14.05.2024) Nicole Elson Cassels, 143 Galloway Drive, Culloden, Inverness, IV2 7LP, (14.05.2024) Ross Petro, (no address given, submitted via planning portal, (14.05.2024) John Rawcliffe, by email, (14.05.2024) Fiona Hughes, 7 Gareloch Brae, Shandon, Helensburgh. G84 8PJ, (14.05.2024) 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: • Caravan site license granted by Environmental Health only permits caravans, tents and motorhomes to operate between 1st of April and 31st of October each year and 8 chalet buildings to be operated 11 months of the year. This licence is not held by the applicant and has not been transferred. The applicant has breached the conditions of this licence. Officer Comment: This is not a material planning consideration. Environmental Health are responsible for the licensing and control of caravan sites. • There was no existing development at the site prior to the installation of 33 lodges. Officer Comment: The site is an established caravan and camping site. See content of report below. • Planning applications 97/01718/OUT and 01/00925/REM permitted six lodges to be erected. Thus far there has been the erection of 33 unauthorised lodges with a prospective application to raise this number to 60. This clearly contravenes earlier planning decisions by the Council and I can find no reason to alter the Council’s previous finding that the Page 39
Page 40
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL development should be restricted and the type of mass development currently being undertaken at the holiday park is to the detriment of the local environment and its human and animal inhabitants. Officer Comment: The site is an established caravan and camping site that was granted planning permission in 1998. Planning Conditions were attached to this permission in order to control the development at the site. The Council has to consider each planning application on its own merits. • There is nothing in the original 1998 planning consent ref 98/00455/COU referring to eight chalet buildings. Surely in absence of planning permission for eight chalet buildings, this caravan site license is invalid and needs to be revoked? Officer Comment: Planning permission 01/00925/REM was granted on the 30th of July 2001 for the erection of six chalets at the site. Three of these chalets were erected and this permission is live in perpetuity. Environmental Health are responsible for the licensing and control of caravan sites. • Concerns with regards to support being received from third parties being disingenuous. Officer Comment: Any individual, group or organisation can make comments of objection or support for a planning application while it is open for consultation. • Contend that new additions to the site are not ‘static caravans’ but rather ‘holiday lodges’. Some of these lodges are for sale openly on the applicant’s website as an ‘all year round home’. This includes a large lodge 45ft x 22ft, built to residential specifications, accommodating up to 7 people. Officer Comment: The proposed units/caravans/lodges are either single or twin units and fall within the legal definition of a ‘caravan’ for planning purposes (definition of caravan contained in Assessment below.). The original caravan and camping site permission permits the siting of 15 caravans within the site which can be used on an all year basis with no restrictions on the use. The proposal for 10 of the proposed units/caravans/lodges to be used on an all year basis residentially is established and does not require the benefit of planning permission. • Unauthorised development has taken place at the site without planning permission. Officer Comment: The site has been the subject of an enforcement investigation which has resulted in the submission of this planning application. Section 33 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that an application for planning permission may be made retrospectively for buildings or works constructed or carried out, or a use of land instituted, before the date of the application. • The map does not appear to include the area of land on the shore side of the road, this has been previously used for tents. Page 40
Page 41
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comment: This area of ground does not form part of the established caravan and camping site and does not form part of this planning application. • Concerns raised with regards to any proposed renovations to the WWII bunker. Officer Comment: This area of ground does not form part of the established caravan and camping site and does not form part of this planning application. • Buildings are included in the proposed site plan which do not form part of this application. Are we to assume that if approved, this site plan grants outline planning for them. Officer Comment: The description of the proposed development does not include these buildings and therefore any grant of planning permission will not include these buildings which may be the subject of future planning applications for consideration. • No disability/wheelchair access, No ramps. Officer Comment: The site is largely an established caravan and camping site. No comments have been provided in response to the application by the Oban Disability Forum. • Requirement for a drainage impact assessment in accordance with the requirements of Policy 62 of the LDP2. Officer Comment: Policy 62 does require developers to submit a DIA as part of all significant new development proposals. The development proposed by this application seeks to improve and enhance an existing tourism offering at the site. It is proposed to slightly extend the site in order to provide a suitable flattened area of ground at the northern section of the site within which to comfortably and safely site a number of the proposed additional units/caravans/lodges. A further extension to the site is proposed at the western side which was proposed to accommodate the proposed biodisc which has since had to be relocated as a result of being too close to a well. The original caravan and camping site was generally in need of maintenance works which have largely been undertaken by the applicant. This proposal seeks to internally alter the layout of the site in order to provide additional units/caravans/lodges which will fulfil the needs and requirements of tourists. The Flood Risk Assessor has been consulted and has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the provision of a planning condition to ensure that surface water drainage is undertaken in accordance with CIRIA C753 at detailed design stage. Post development surface water runoff should be attenuated to pre-development amounts. A note to applicant will also be required to advise as a recommendation that Finished Floor Levels (FFLs) to be elevated to at least 0.3m above the surrounding ground. Landscape and Visual Impact Page 41
Page 42
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • The front of the site was well concealed from the site and the island of Kerrera by approx. 200 metres of old growth woodland which have now been cleared. In addition to this the site has been raised by 15 feet to give the multiple highly visible chalets a lovely view of the sound. Unfortunately this has massively impacted the character and setting of the sound. The development has been designed to maximise the view of the guests and situation of the chalets without taking into account the nature of the area and the beauty that is negatively impacting. • The application states that the number of ‘units’ that will be accommodated at the site will not change and will accommodate inter alia 32 static caravans. The conditional planning permission 98/00455/COU only allowed for 15 static caravans (condition 3) so that the Council could ‘effectively control the number and location of all static caravans…. In order to help minimise the impact of the development on the landscape of this part of the scenic area’. • The applicant has been permitted to continue digging further and further up the hillside without the need for any environmental impact survey to have been carried out first. I expect this is with a view to further expansion of the caravan park. • I object to the owners carrying out extensive renovations that include building a two lane road up the hill without an environmental assessment having been done. • As has been evidenced by the illegal development thus far erected, the visual amenity of the site has virtually been destroyed. The lodges currently in situ, are a monstrous scar on the hillside. • The application 23/01723/PP which referred to the same area and development of the current application referenced a change’ area of 0.51 hectares. In fact, the total site area of retrospective and prospective development is circa 7 hectares. This considerably exceeds the 0.51 hectares the application erroneously suggested. The whole area of 7 hectares is within the APQ/LLA. • The application invites the inference that the number of units currently permitted (tents and static caravans supra), should be interpreted to allow the erection of lodges. A lodge is not a ‘like for like’ substitute for a tent/caravan. The visual amenity and designation of the APQ/LLA from lodges, far outweighs temporary visual impairment caused by tents/caravans. • The proposed lodges are to be sited higher up the hillside, thus will be in view from a wider area, and will require further ground disturbance and potentially further tree felling. • The privacy afforded to Gallanachmore Cottage has been affected as there are a number of lodges with large decking areas overlooking. Planning and other decisions must be ECHR compliant (Article 8 of the European on Human Rights (privacy and a private life). Officer Comment: See assessment below. There is an area of land to the immediate south of the application site which is the subject of an enforcement case with regards to works that have been undertaken to an existing track which is used for agricultural purposes. The site is largely an established caravan and camping site and it has been modestly extended to the north. This area of land lies within a designated ‘Tourism Infrastructure’ area as designated by the current Local Development Plan. The site is set well back from Gallanachmore Cottage which is Page 42
Page 43
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL separated by a road and an established belt of woodland which occupies a steep embankment. The units/caravans/lodges are set back from this steep embankment No further tree felling is proposed. Whilst the loss of a small number of trees and shrubs along the site frontage may have resulted in the site being marginally more visible from views from Kerrera, a condition requiring compensatory planting will ensure that the proposed development integrates well with the surrounding landscape. • Objection to the use of the site for 12 months of the year. Officer Comment: See assessment below. • Increase in electricity demands. Officer Comment: This is not a material planning consideration. • No indication of any intention to install any renewable energy infrastructure. Officer Comment: This application relates to internal alterations to an established caravan and camping site in order to increase the number of units/caravans/lodges that can be sited along with minor extensions to the site to provide a flat area to accommodate some of the proposed units/caravans/lodges. There is no requirement for the provision of any renewable energy infrastructure. • This should have been treated at the onset as a major development. Officer Comment: This application is not a major development. The majority of the site has the benefit of planning permission and is a developed site. The current application relates to internal alterations to an established caravan and camping site in order to increase the number of units/caravans/lodges that can be sited along with minor extensions to the site to provide a flat area to accommodate some of the proposed units/caravans/lodges. The minor extensions proposed do not propose development on an area of ground which is 2 hectares or more and so therefore the proposed development does not constitute major development. • Water run-off from disturbed drainage has discoloured the sea water impacting on Puffin Dive Centre. Long term impact on undersea species. Officer Comment: The Marine and Coastal Officer has been consulted and has raised no objections to the proposed development. Roads • The road along Gallanach is not fit for purpose for a caravan park with a significant increase in visitors. To permit a more than doubling/replacing of ‘static caravans’ with larger ‘luxury lodges’ would show the current authority to be demonstrating an incomprehensible disregard for the safety of both vehicular and pedestrian users of this road. • Retrospective consent is being sought for the 33 lodges already erected and in use. Permission is sought to erect a further 27 lodges and Page 43
Page 44
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL outbuildings. The capacity of the lodges erected without consent is 184 persons, the capacity of the lodges for which consent is sought is 162 persons. This clearly has implications for road usage and resources. • The proposed development will result in a change in traffic. i.e more cars than campervans and mobile caravans which will be travelling significantly quicker. • Tourism traffic passing the Kerrera Ferry slip will drive dangerously due to the parked traffic. • I have noted that a planning application for Kilbowie has been awarded and the Roads Department have commented about Gallanach Road, so I am assuming that significant improvements will be required between Kilbowie and Gallanachmor. Should Highland Holidays not be subject to similar requirements? • Concerns about the number of cars allowed to access the site as it is assumed that larger caravans/lodges may have more than one car at each, especially if different families are sharing larger accommodation. • This road has no pavement provision from the end of Dungallon Park to the entrance to the holiday park and is also very narrow in places with little or no verge. • Officer Comment: The site is situated off the C34 Gallanach Road. The site is an established caravan and camping site which already generates a significant volume of traffic using the public road. The development which is the subject of this proposal is for extensions and alterations to the internal layout of the existing holiday park, including the installation of new water storage tanks and a sewage treatment plant (part retrospective). The site currently has planning permission 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. The site also accommodates 6 small pods which are well established. Additional tents can be accommodated at an area known as ‘Area B’ between the months of May and September. In terms of numbers this equates to 192 pitches which can be in use all year round for the purposes of providing a place for tourists to stay. It is not possible to define an exact number of tourists that could be accommodated on site at any one time as there is no limitation on the size of tents, motorhomes and touring caravans. permanent units/caravans/lodges/pods, 6 pods, 3 chalets (for staff accommodation) and a maximum of 104 touring pitches for touring caravans. The total number of pitches (including the proposed units/caravans/lodges/pods) would be 173 for use throughout the year with no unit/caravan/lodg being able to be occupied on a permanent basis with the exception of the three chalets which will be used to provide staff accommodation. and the 10 replacement units/caravans/lodgeswhich do not require the benefit of planning permission (see assessment below which contains legal definition of caravan for planning purposes).applicant has worked closely with the Roads Authority to agree the proposed access regime to serve the proposed development which includes the provision of: • 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; Page 44
Page 45
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • 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 SD08/004a; • 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. Light • Newly created light pollution visible from Isle Of Kerrera. • Officer Comment: Environmental health have been consulted and have raised no objections to the proposed development. A condition will be required in order to ensure that any details of proposed lighting are submitted for consultation with Environmental Health. Noise • Noise pollution from the electricity generator situated on the hill above the site. • Noise from intermittent sounds of chainsaws cutting down trees. • Noise from the occupants residing in the units/caravans/lodges. Officer Comment: Environmental health have been consulted and have raised no objections to the proposed development. Biodiversity • Harm to wildlife from rubbish • The planning committee placed a specific prohibition on the felling of trees and the removal of plant species. • Trees have been removed, and those responsible should be tasked with replacing the broad leaf trees they removed. • The development carried out thus far has involved extensive felling of trees. Tree felling negatively impacts the wildlife habitat of owls, red squirrels, pine marten, deer and other birds and mammals. Those responsible for this site should be instructed to re-plant the extensive area of broad leaf trees already removed. Officer Comment: See assessment below. Sewage and drainage • Off-site flooding concerns Page 45
Page 46
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comments: The site does not lie within an area at risk from coastal or fluvial flooding. There has been no requirement for consultation with SEPA as it falls below SEPAs threshold for consultation. The Flood Risk Assessor has been consulted as the site is identified of being in an area at risk from surface water flooding. The Flood Risk Assessor has been consulted in line with SEPA’s standing advice as the site is identified of being in an area at risk of surface water flooding. The Flood Risk Assessor has been consulted and has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the provision of a planning condition to ensure that surface water drainage is undertaken in accordance with CIRIA C753 at detailed design stage. Post development surface water runoff should be attenuated to pre- development amounts. A note to applicant will also be required to advise as a recommendation that Finished Floor Levels (FFLs) to be elevated to at least 0.3m above the surrounding ground. • Newly created discharge directly into the sea caused by on site flooding and increase in waste water/chemicals from hot tub lodges. Officer Comment: SEPA were not required to be consulted on this application as the proposed development falls outwith SEPA’s threshold for consultation. A biodisc is proposed to be installed at the western side of the site which will be controlled by SEPA and Building Standards under their remit. Discharge from hot tubs to soakaway or surface waters will require CAR authorisation (unless this is a single domestic hot tub discharging to land or soakaway). The Flood Risk Assessor has been consulted in line with SEPA’s standing advice as the site is identified of being in an area at risk of surface water flooding. The Flood Risk Assessor has been consulted and has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the provision of a planning condition to ensure that surface water drainage is undertaken in accordance with CIRIA C753 at detailed design stage. Post development surface water runoff should be attenuated to pre- development amounts. A note to applicant will also be required to advise as a recommendation that Finished Floor Levels (FFLs) to be elevated to at least 0.3m above the surrounding ground. Water supply • Additional demands on the shared water supply caused by new hot tub lodges. • Private water supply is not adequate and will dry up. • Part (b) of Policy 58 is applicable. Officer Comment: The Environmental Health Unit have been consulted with regards to the proposed private water supply and have raised no objections subject to a suspensive pre-start condition required to secure a report on the proposed private water supply to ensure that it is sufficient to serve the proposed development and does not impact on existing users of the same supply or adjacent supplies. Part (b) of Policy 58 of LDP 2 does not apply as there is no proposal to connect to the public water supply which is not feasible at this location. Page 46
Page 47
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert EIAR topics below) (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes attach as an appendix) (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☒Yes ☐No A Supporting Planning Statement has been submitted with the application the content of which is discussed in the main assessment of the application within Appendix A of this report. (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes list supporting documents below) (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of the terms and heads of agreement and, grounds for refusal if not completed within 4 months below) (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details of direction below) Page 47
Page 48
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (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 NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Page 48
Page 49
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems 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 Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry Woodland and Trees 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 Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN21 VII and LVIA Light Technical Note (Oct. 2023) • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐☒Yes ☒☐No The site area of the proposed extensions to the existing caravan and camping site has an area of approximately 0.51 hectares which is marginally above the Schedule 2 Threshold for Tourism and Leisure Development. However on the basis that the proposed private sewage treatment system has been relocated to an area of land within the established caravan and camping park, this proposed extension will no longer be necessary taking the area to under 0.5 ha. No development is now proposed on this area of ground and so therefore a Screening Opinion will not be necessary. (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes provide summary detail of PAC below) (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No Page 49
Page 50
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No (if Yes insert details below) In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing Members should consider: • How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance. At the time of writing, 29 objections and 14 expressions of support have been received to the application. 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. It is considered that the proposed development would be of an appropriate scale to the natural and built surroundings and would integrate appropriately with the landscape setting. The site when viewed from Kerrera to the north and west from the public road is significantly backdropped as it is set against steep-sided hills which are contained within a vast highland mountainous backdrop. It is therefore the considered opinion of the Planning Authority that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified. It is important to note that the site is a well established caravan and camping site which has planning permission 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. The proposed development is essentially for the change of use of two small parcels of land to enlarge the site boundary; the siting of an additional 50 units/caravans/lodges: repositioning of 6 pods; repositioning of 3 chalets for use as permanent staff accommodation; siting of water tanks; provision of private water supply and the installation of a sewage treatment plant. It should be noted that in the absence of proposed extensions to the caravan and camping site boundary that a Section 42 application could well have been submitted to change the layout of the existing caravan and camping site which could potentially have allowed for the number of static caravans and tent/motorhome and touring caravan pitches within this established site to be altered. The siting of units/caravans/lodges within an existing established caravan and camping site which is designated within the adopted LDP as a “Tourism Infrastructure’ area is a development type which is to be expected, Page 50
Page 51
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The main 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 raised by objectors. No objections have been received from consultees with regards to the proposed infrastructure to serve the proposed development. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the representations received, together with officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, provide all the information required to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. In this instance it is not considered that the objections 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. The determining factor in the assessment of this application is whether the proposed tourism development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues raised by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold planning permission. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy with the issues raised by third parties not amounting to material planning considerations that have not been addressed through the processing of the planning application. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Site located within Local Landscape Area (Formerly known as APQ (Area of Panoramic Quality) • Semi ancient woodland • Risk of Surface Water Flooding (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 5.2 – Land capable of use as improved grassland. Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: 0 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 Page 51
Page 52
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒ No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application (tick all relevant boxes) ☒Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Settlement Area ☒Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: Tourism Infrastructure Area (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning permission is sought for extensions and alterations to the internal layout of an existing holiday park, including the installation of new water storage tanks and a sewage treatment plant (part retrospective) at Oban Caravan and Camping Park, Gallanachmore, Gallanach Road, Oban. The application site lies within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area' (CA) where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. Policy 02 further states that certain development will be supported, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, with these comprising, infill, redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or previously developed sites. In CAs, where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place, Policy 02 details that development proposals will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. The site lies within a designated Local Landscape Area (LLA) (formerly Area of Panoramic Quality) where LDP2 seeks to promote a flexible approach to small scale development in the Countryside through Policies 02 and 71 which clarify when the planning authority may require submission of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). A Design and Access Statement has been submitted in support of the proposed development. The site has been visited on a number of occasions as part of an Page 52
Page 53
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL enforcement investigation, the previously submitted application which has been withdrawn and the current proposal which is the subject of this application. A Sustainability Checklists has been submitted in support of the proposal. From the information which has been submitted it has been concluded by officers that no further information is required in terms of landscape or visual impacts. The site is well contained within the landscape and is substantially backdropped by higher ground which has been experienced by Officers on the ground. Consideration of these matters, alongside other relevant planning considerations, are assessed in further detail below. As it stands the site is a well-established caravan and camping site which has planning permission 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 at an area known as ‘Area B’ between the months of May and September. There is no limitation on the number of tents that can be accommodated in ‘Area B’ at any one time. The original caravan and camping site also included a reception/shop, dwellinghouse with workshop, former café building, communal toilet block and a World War 2 Bunker. The site is located along the coast of the Sound of Kerrera in an area known as Gallanach. The site lies towards the southern end of a scattered roadend settlement which lies approximately 3.5km to the southwest of Oban. Gallanach comprises a settlement and three farms, namely Gallanachmore, Gallanachbeg and Gallanach Home Farm, the latter being located close to Gallanach Castle. The site is set on the landward side of the public road which runs along the north western boundary of the site. The site is afforded long views to Kerrera. A woodland strip runs along the northern front end of the site on a steep slope of which of which a section forms part of an Ancient Woodland at the north western side of the site. The caravan park is set back in an elevated position which is well contained within the surrounding landscape. The development proposed by this application seeks to improve and enhance an existing tourism offering at the site. It is proposed to slightly extend the site in order to provide a suitable flattened area of ground at the northern section of the site within which to comfortably and safely site a number of the proposed additional units/caravans/lodges. A further extension to the site is proposed at the western side which was proposed to accommodate the proposed biodisc which has since had to be relocated as a result of being to close to a well. The original caravan and camping site was generally in need of maintenance works which have largely been undertaken by the applicant. This proposal seeks to internally alter the layout of the site in order to provide additional units/caravans/lodges which will fulfil the needs and requirements of tourists. The total number of units/caravans/lodges to be sited is 60 (including 10 static caravans which have been replaced with units/chalets/lodges which does not require the benefit of planning permission) being sited largely within the central part of the site. The lower section of the site which comprises a low lying grassed area of ground near the site entrance is to remain intact and will not be used to provide any pitches for camping purposes as it was previously used for. The three chalets which were originally sited within the south eastern section of the site have been relocated on an area of ground to the immediate north west and are Page 53
Page 54
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL being used to accommodate staff on all year round basis. It is proposed to relocate the 6 pods to an area of ground to the south west. The site previously included 2 small water tanks on an area of higher ground to the south of the caravan and camping site. Four larger water tanks have been installed at this part of the site without the benefit of planning permission. The proposal includes the installation of a new biodisc treatment plant in one of the two proposed extensions to the site at the western side. This proposed biodisc has now been relocated in response to a well issue that was highlighted by one of the consultees to an area of ground to the east which lies within the caravan and camping site. The proposed units/caravans/lodges will be permanently sited with a total of 10 being proposed to be privately sold. Concerns have been raised by third parties with regards to the potential for these caravans/lodges being used on a permanent residential basis. The 3 chalets which have been relocated within the site are required to be used on a permanent residential basis for the purposes of providing all year round staff accommodation. The original caravan and camping site permission permits the siting of 15 caravans within the site which can be used on an all year basis with no restrictions on the use. The proposal for 10 of the units/caravans/lodges to be used on an all year basis residentially within the established caravan camping site is established and does not require the benefit of planning permission. The use of the three chalets on a permanent basis for the provision of staff accommodation is considered to be acceptable on the basis that it is a trade for the 5 previously sited static caravans that could be used on an all year basis residentially. No more units/caravans/lodges are permitted to be used on a permanent residential basis at the site. A condition will be required to ensure that 50 of the total units/caravans/lodges (including the 10 replacement units/caravans/lodges which are in situ) are used for holiday occupancy only and shall not be used as a principal or main dwelling. The site is situated off of the C34 Gallanach Road and is served by a private access. The application indicates the provision of a private water supply with a private drainage system comprising a biodisc treatment plant proposed due to the lack of public drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site No objections have been raised by any of the consultees. At the time of writing, representations had been received by the Planning Authority from 43 respondents in relation to this planning application. 29 respondents raise objection and 14 raise expressions of support. The determining factor in the assessment of this application is whether the proposed tourism development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues raised by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold planning permission. The proposed tourism development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 with the issues raised by third parties not considered to raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold planning permission. Page 54
Page 55
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Taking account of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions. A full report is provided in Appendix A. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No (If yes provide detail below) Author of Report: L Cuthbertson Date: 06.03.2025 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 06.03.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 55
Page 56
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/00745/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 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; Page 56
Page 57
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • 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. 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 b 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; Page 57
Page 58
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 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, That 50 units/caravans/lodges at the site 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. 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. 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 Page 58
Page 59
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. Page 59
Page 60
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/00745/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. The proposal which is the subject of this planning application is seeking planning permission for the extensions and alterations to the internal layout of an existing holiday park, including the installation of new water storage tanks and a sewage treatment plant (part retrospective) The site has the benefit of planning permission ref 98/00455/COU which was granted on the 21st of May 1998 for the change of use of land to form a caravan and camping site. As it stands the site is a well established caravan and camping site which has planning permission 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. There is no limitation on the number of tents that can be accommodated in this area at any one time. The original caravan and camping site also included a reception/shop, dwellinghouse with workshop, former café building, communal toilet block and a World War 2 Bunker. This application for planning permission (part retrospective) has been submitted as a result of a planning enforcement investigation by the planning authority. It was established that works were being undertaken in order to repair, maintain and upgrade the existing site. It was also established that a number of the existing static caravans at the site were being replaced by units/caravans/lodges which did not constitute development. The site owner was advised that that planning permission would be required for any development being undertaken over and above the replacement of the existing static caravans and chalets at the site with units/caravans/units/lodges. A further 21 units/caravans/lodges over and above the consented number of static caravans and chalets were then brought onto the site and groundworks were undertaken to slightly extend the site to the north in order to provide a suitable flattened area of ground. This resulted in an element of small scale tree felling and shrub removal at that part of the site. The existing access track which runs throughout the site was also the subject of maintenance works. Three of the chalets which have the benefit of planning permission (01/00925/REM) have been repositioned within the site and are being used for the purposes of providing staff accommodation (this permission is live in perpetuity and allows for a further three chalets to be sited). There are 6 small established pods which are located within the central part of the site. Section 33 of The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 provides that an application for planning permission may be made retrospectively for buildings or works constructed or carried out, or a use of land instituted, before the date of the application. Page 60
Page 61
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The proposed development is essentially for the change of use of two small parcels of land to enlarge the site boundary; the siting of an additional 50 units/caravans/lodges: repositioning of 6 pods; repositioning of 3 chalets for use as permanent staff accommodation; siting of water tanks; provision of private water supply and the installation of a sewage treatment plant. It should be noted that in the absence of proposed extensions to the caravan and camping site boundary that a Section 42 application could well have been submitted to change the layout of the existing caravan and camping site which could potentially have allowed for the number of static caravans and tent/motorhome and touring caravan pitches within this established site to be altered. The proposals which are the subject of this application are detailed in section 3 below. 2. Settlement Strategy 2.1. In terms of the adopted LDP2 the site lies within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area' (CA) where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. Policy 02 further states that certain development will be supported, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, with these comprising, infill, redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or previously developed sites. In CAs, where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place, Policy 02 details that development proposals will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. The site lies within a designated Local Landscape Area (LLA) (formerly Area of Panoramic Quality) where LDP2 seeks to promote a flexible approach to development in the Countryside through Policies 02 and 71 which clarify when the planning authority may require submission of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). In this instance the proposed development is not considered likely to have a significant adverse effect upon the LLA designation. The assessment of landscape matters is set out in Section 5.4 below. The site is an existing caravan and camping site which contributes to the creation of a valuable tourism network, the presence of these facilities and the combination of these with other elements of tourist infrastructure providing mutual benefit to each other and the wider tourism economy. Those areas and facilities which are considered to contribute to the tourism network and may be vulnerable to change are safeguarded and identified in the Proposals Maps. Development proposals which might undermine the network will be resisted. The majority of the site is located within land which is designated as ‘Tourism Infrastructure’ by the current LDP2. A portion of the site at the western side lies outwith this designation. LDP2 Policy 23 sets out a general presumption in favour of new or improved tourism facilities and accommodation. A detailed assessment of the matters identified under LDP2 Policy 23 are addressed within Section 5.13 below. Page 61
Page 62
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 3. Application Site The site is located along the coast of the Sound of Kerrera in an area known as Gallanach. The site lies towards the southern end of a scattered road end settlement which lies approximately 3.5km to the southwest of Oban. Gallanach comprises a settlement and three farms, namely Gallanachmore, Gallanachbeg and Gallanach Home Farm, the latter being located close to Gallanach Castle. The site is set on the landward side of the public road which runs along the northern boundary of the site. The site is afforded long views to Kerrera. A woodland strip runs along the northern front end of the site on a steep slope of which a section forms part of an Ancient Woodland at the western side of the site. The caravan park is set back in an elevated position which is well contained within the surrounding landscape. The site is an area of open ground that is set over four tiers. The lower section is set slightly back from the public road and comprises a low lying grassed area of ground which has permission for tents (no limitation on the number) to be sited between May and September. The campsite access then rises towards the second tier of the site which comprises a cluster of buildings which includes the site reception building and 11 of the proposed permanent units/caravans/lodges (2 of which comprise of 2 units) and 3 permanent chalets which are being relocated from the south western corner of the site and are being used to provide staff accommodation. The three chalets were previously sited on the part of the site which has the benefit of planning permission ref 01/00925/REM for the erection of 6 chalets. The repositioning of these chalets for use as permanent staff accommodation and the siting of 11 of the proposed permanent units/caravans/lodges at this part of the site require the benefit of planning permission and are retrospective elements of this application. The main access within the site runs past the existing reception building and rises to the third tier of the site which is the biggest part of the site. This part of the site has previously had permission for the siting of a number of the consented 15 static caravans which have all recently been replaced by 10 of the proposed permanent units/caravans/lodges. The replacement of these static caravans with the units which are in situ is not development that requires planning permission. Ten additional units have been sited in the northern section of the site encroaching onto an area of ground which does not form part of the original caravan and camping site. This area of ground is one of the two areas of ground which are proposed as extensions to the site. An area of ground to the south of this part of the site accommodates 6 pods and 3 small buildings which provide facilities for campers at the site. The western section of the site is a grassed area of ground which is a camping area. A small playpark of wooden construction has been installed in this part of the site without the benefit of planning permission. The ground rises to the south of the playpark where a small communal toilet block is located. The ground then rises again to the east to the upper fourth tier of the site to an area of flattened ground where camper vans and touring caravans can be sited. Minor groundworks have been undertaken within this section of the site in order to even out the surface to allow the siting of additional units/caravans/lodges which form part of this proposal. 4. Proposed Development The current application comprises of the following: • Extensions to existing holiday park (retrospective) • Alterations to the internal layout of existing holiday park (part retrospective) Page 62
Page 63
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Siting of 50 permanent units/caravans/lodges (part retrospective) • Repositioning of 6 camping pods • Repositioning of 3 chalets for use as permanent staff accommodation(retrospective) • Siting of water tanks • Provision of private water supply • Installation of sewage treatment plant Part of the proposed development is to extend the site to the north in order to comfortably site additional units/caravans/lodges. This area of ground is very small and minor groundworks have been undertaken in order to slightly reduce the ground levels at various points. The applicant has submitted a plan illustrating the original site levels and a site plan which show the proposed site levels. From these plans it can be observed that the recent changes in site levels and proposed changes in site levels are fairly minor in nature. The total number of units/caravans/lodges to be sited is 50 being sited largely within the central part of the site. The lower section of the site which comprises a low lying grassed area of ground near the site entrance is to remain intact and will not be used to provide any pitches for camping purposes as it was previously used for. The three chalets which were originally sited within the south eastern section of the site have been relocated on an area of ground to the immediate north west and are being used to accommodate staff on all year round basis. It is proposed to relocate the 6 pods to an area of ground to the south west. The site previously included 2 small water tanks on an area of higher ground to the south of the caravan and camping site. Four larger water tanks have been installed at this part of the site without the benefit of planning permission. The proposal includes the installation of a new biodisc treatment plant in one of the two proposed extensions to the site at the western side. This proposed biodisc has now been relocated in response to a well issue that was highlighted by one of the consultees to an area of ground to the east which lies within the caravan and camping site. The proposed units/caravans/lodges will be permanently sited with a total of 10 being proposed to be privately sold. Concerns have been raised by third parties with regards to the potential for these units/caravans/lodges being used on a permanent residential basis. The 3 chalets which have been relocated within the site are required to be used on a permanent residential basis for the purposes of providing all year round staff accommodation. The original caravan and camping site permission permits the siting of 15 caravans within the site which can be used on an all year basis with no restrictions on the use. The proposal for 10 of the proposed units/caravans/lodges to be used on an all year basis residentially is established at the site and does not require the benefit of planning permission. The use of the three chalets on a permanent basis for the provision of staff accommodation is considered to be acceptable on the basis that it is a trade for the 5 previously sited static caravans that could be used on an all year basis residentially. No more units/caravans/lodges are permitted to be used on a permanent residential basis. A condition will be required to ensure that 50 of the total units/caravans/lodges (inluding the 10 replacement units/caravans/lodges which are in situ) are used for holiday occupancy only and shall not be used as a principal or main dwelling. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping and planting within the site seeking to aid landscape value to the site. It is considered that appropriate landscaping measures Page 63
Page 64
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL will ensure that the proposed development integrates well within the surrounding landscape. 5. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. 5.1. NPF4 - Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. In this case, given the nature of the development proposed and its alignment with all other relevant policies in NPF4 and those supporting policies in the adopted LDP, it is considered that the development proposed would be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 1 as underpinned by Policies 02 and 04 of pLDP2. 5.2. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. It is considered that the proposed development would be consistent with Policy 2 of NPF4 having had due regard to the specifics of the development proposed and to the overarching planning policy strategy outlined Policies 02, 04 and 09 of LPD2. 5.3. NPF4 Policy 3 - Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Page 64
Page 65
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The applicant has submitted a Biodiversity Overlay Plan, Proposed Planting List, Biodiversity Enhancement Proposals Report and a Sustainability Checklist in support of the proposed development. Nature Scot have been consulted and have advised that the proposal does not meet with their criteria for consultation.: the site is not within a designated protected area and protected species are not known to inhabit the area. Nature Scot have provided advice with regards to the proposed planting list. Nature Scot have recommended that this list is reviewed in full, with non-native species being replaced by native species which will aid with tackling biodiversity loss. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has been consulted and has noted that the proposed site boundary lies within an Area of Ancient Woodland. The Biodiversity Officer has requested the provision of a detailed tree survey to ensure the protection of trees within the ancient woodland and a protected species survey and has agreed with the observations of Nature Scot with regards to the requirement for the provision of native trees at site. A tree planting programme has been requested and can be delivered via a planning condition. Conditions will also be required to ensure that the provision of an adequate landscaping plan taking the Biodiversity Officer’s comments on board. A small number of trees have previously been felled within the proposed northern extension of the site which lie within this Area of Ancient Woodland. No more tree felling is proposed as part of this application. Whilst the loss of these trees is disappointing the felling of trees within an Area of Ancient Woodland does not constitute development that would require the benefit of planning permission. A condition will be required to ensure that a detailed tree survey of the existing trees within the designated Ancient Woodland within the ground which is owned by the applicant is submitted to ensure the protection of these trees along with a scheme of compensatory tree planting. A protected species plan is not considered to be necessary as the site is a functioning established caravan and camping site which is full of human activity. The essence of the proposed development is to modestly extend the site to allow for a reconfiguration of the layout of the existing established site to allow for the siting of additional units/caravans/lodges. The majority of the site is a developed site already in use for the purposes of providing tourism. Nature Scot have advised that protected species are not known to inhabit the area. A tree planting programme has been requested which can be delivered by condition to ensure that any trees to be planted are entirely native. The supporting Design and Access Statement states that: ‘The application site is not specifically designated for its biodiversity value. Nevertheless, Policy 3 of the NPF states that all development proposals should contribute to the enhancement of biodiversity, including where relevant, restoring degraded habitats and building and strengthening nature networks and the connections between them. Proposals should also integrate nature-based solutions, where possible. Proposals for local development must therefore include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity, in accordance with national and local guidance. Measures should be proportionate to the nature and scale of development With regards to the need in NPF4 Policy 3 to secure biodiversity improvements, it is not considered that there are any issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority. Page 65
Page 66
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The submitted application is accompanied by a detailed scheme of landscaping, and this has been designed in order to significantly enhance the overall biodiversity value of the site. The aims and objectives of Policy 3 of the NPF and Policy 73 of the LDP2 will therefore be fully met. Over and above increasing the biodiversity value of the application site, appropriate landscaping measures will also help address any concerns that the Council might have with respect to impact on the character of the Local Landscape Area (LLA).’ Notwithstanding the plans, supporting information and biodiversity checklist submitted with the application, the Planning Authority is of the opinion that the proposed development provides the opportunity to provide further biodiversity enhancement and protection could be delivered by planning condition which would align with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and be consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. 5.4 NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Part (a) of Policy 4 states that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. Part (d) of Policy 4 states that development proposals that affect a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: i. Development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or ii. Any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local importance. The proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a National Scenic Area a SSSI or RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or within an area identified as wild land. The site is however located within a designated Local Landscape Area (LLA). LLAs are designated to safeguard and enhance the character and quality of a landscape that is valued locally or regionally. The site is located within a Local Landscape Area (LLA) which is identified as being within The Craggy Coast and Islands Landscape Character Type (SNH National Landscape Character Assessment). This Landscape Character Type encompasses the coastal area of rocky crags and lochs between Oban and Loch Craignish, and the near shore islands of Kerrera, Seil, Luing and Shuna. This landscape is a diverse landscape. The intricate coastal edge is cut by narrow sea lochs and sounds. This coastal landscape has been relatively well settled since prehistory. Strong containment is provided to the coastal edge by steep-sided hills to the east, the deeply indented coastal edge and knolly landform, giving an often small scale to the landscape. This is accentuated woodlands, small enclosed fields and settlement The site is situated within landscape which is largely knolly in nature. The site itself is made up of stepped up terraces of ground that are largely flat running parallel with the sound of Kerrera. The site is well contained within the landscape being set against steep- sided hills. Page 66
Page 67
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL A Design and Access Statement has been submitted in support of the proposed development which contains visuals. The site has been visited on a number of occasions as part of enforcement investigations and the previously submittedapplication which has been withdrawn and the current proposal which is the subject of this application. A Sustainability Checklist has been submitted in support of the proposed development. From the information which has been submitted it has been concluded by officers that no further information is required in terms of landscape or visual impacts. The site is well contained within the landscape and is substantially backdropped by higher ground which has been experienced by Officers on the ground. Overall it is considered that the proposed development would be of an appropriate scale to the natural and built surroundings and would integrate appropriately with the landscape setting. The site when viewed from Kerrera to the north and west from the public road is significantly backdropped as it is set against steep-sided hills which are contained within a vast highland mountainous backdrop. It is therefore the considered opinion of the Planning Authority that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified. The siting of units/caravans/lodges within an existing established caravan and camping site which is designated within the adopted LDP as a “Tourism Infrastructure’ area is a development type which is to be expected, It is not considered that the proposal to extend and revise the internal layout of the site with the siting of additional units/caravans/lodges will result in any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area or the qualities for which it has been identified given that this is an existing Caravan and Camping Site. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 4 and does not conflict with Policy 71, Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) 5.5 NPF Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 6 seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. A small number of trees have previously been felled within the proposed northern extension of the site which lie within an Area of Ancient Woodland. No more tree felling is proposed as part of this application. Whilst the loss of these trees is disappointing the felling of trees within an Area of Ancient Woodland does not constitute development that would require the benefit of planning permission. A condition will be required to ensure that a detailed tree survey of the existing trees within the designated Ancient Woodland within the ground which is owned by the applicant is submitted to ensure the protection of these trees along with a scheme of compensatory tree planting It is not considered that this limited tree loss will conflict with the overarching policy aims of NPF4 Policy 6. In this regard a condition will be imposed on the grant of permission to secure a detailed tree survey of the existing trees within the designated Ancient Woodland within the ground which is owned by the applicant is submitted to ensure the protection of these trees along with a scheme of compensatory tree planting. This approach satisfies the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 6 (b & c) and as underpinned by LDP2 policy 77. 5.6 NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings Page 67
Page 68
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Part (a) of Policy 9 states that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. The development proposed by this application seeks to improve and enhance an existing tourism offering at the site. It is proposed to slightly extend the site in order to provide a suitable flattened area of ground at the northern section of the site within which to comfortably and safely site a number of the proposed additional units/caravans/lodges. A further extension to the site is proposed at the western side which was proposed to accommodate the proposed biodisc which has since had to be relocated as a result of being to close to a well. The original caravan and camping site was generally in need of maintenance works which have largely been undertaken by the applicant. This proposal seeks to internally alter the layout of the site in order to provide additional units/caravans/lodges which will fulfil the needs and requirements of tourists. The proposed development will essentially enhance, extend and modify an established tourism offering at this location. In land use terms the proposed tourism development is compatible with the surrounding land uses which are mixed. It is considered that the site presents an opportunity for development that would embrace the existing characteristics, with the design complementing its surroundings in terms of density, appearance, height, scale, masses and finishes. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 9 and does not conflict with Policies 02 and 05 of LDP2. 5. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 12 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. Policy 63 of LDP2 requires the provision of waste management within development sites. Development is required to make effective land use and layout provision for the storage, separation, recycling, composting and collection of waste with developers ensuring that the minimisation of waste generated during construction and demolition by the production of Site Waste Management Plans (SWMPs). The development the subject of this planning application seeks to improve, extend and enhance an existing tourism offering at the site The proposals incorporate the use of prefabricated, demountable components to minimise site waste and to reduce construction times. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it will already benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. The proposed development is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 and does not conflict with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 63, Waste Related Page 68
Page 69
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Development and Waste Management which seek to ensure that effective provision for waste/recycling is provided within developments and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 5.8 NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The site is an established caravan and camping site which is located approximately 3.5km to the southwest of Oban. The site is situated off the C34 Gallanach Road. The site is an established caravan and camping site which generates a significant volume of traffic using the public road. The development which is the subject of this proposal is for extensions and alterations to the internal layout of an existing holiday park. The current proposal will result in a decrease in the number of pitches for tents/touring caravans and motorhomes going from 150 down to 104. A further 15 tent pitches will also be removed from the site. The low lying grassed area of ground which has permission for tents (no limitation on the number) to be sited between May and September will no longer be used for this purpose and presents another decrease in the consented number of tent pitches. Ten units/caravans/lodges have replaced the 15 consented static caravans at the site and an additional 50 units/caravans/lodges are proposed which fall within the legal definition of caravan. The terms caravan and mobile home are interchangeable. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 interprets 'mobile home' as having the same meaning as Part 1 of the caravan Sites and Control and Development Act 1960. The legislation defines a 'caravan' as 'any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer), and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted'. Large twin units and units classed as 'chalets' can be classed as a caravan, if they are physically capable of being moved as one unit. It does not matter whether it would be lawful to transport a large caravan on the road. The maximum size of a caravan/mobile home is 20 metres in length (exclusive of any draw-bar), 6.8 metres in width and 3.05 metres in internal height. The applicant has worked closely with the Roads Authority to agree the proposed access regime to serve the proposed development which includes the provision of: • 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 SD08/004a; • 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; Page 69
Page 70
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • 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. It can therefore be concluded that the proposed development does not raise any road safety issues with conditions to secure the required road highway improvements as requested by the Roads Authority. With conditions to secure the requirements of the Roads Authority and the Council’s Access Manager the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 32, 35, 39,40 and 41 of the LDP2. 5.9 NPF4 Policy 14 – Design Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. NPF4 Policy 14(a) details that development proposals should be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale with Part (b) affording support to developments where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable and Adaptable. Part (c) details that development proposals which are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area, or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. The proposed units/caravans/lodges will be suitably spaced out and will each be of a standard design and being sited in a manner which will respect the existing form of the site. The site can legitimately be used for the siting of a number of touring caravans/motorhomes and tents as it stands on an all year basis. It is considered that the proposed extensions and internal alterations to the layout of the site will have very little impact upon the surrounding landscape. In this instance there is no requirement for the proposed development to have to be assessed against the six qualities of successful places as set out by NPF4 Policy 14(a) given the very nature of the site and its current land use. Plans and elevations of the units/caravans/lodges haven’t been submitted in support of this application and have been sought from the applicant. The proposed units/caravans/lodges are either single or twin units and fall within the legal definition of a ‘caravan’ for planning purposes. The supporting Design and Access Statement advises that 48 of the units/caravans/lodges will each accommodate 6 persons and that the remaining 12 will each accommodate 4 persons (this figure includes 10 of the units/caravans/lodges which have replaced the static caravans on the site). The units/caravans/lodges which are currently on the site are of a dark grey muted colour with the walls being clad with an engineered wood cladding. The applicant has submitted a list of internet links to illustrate the type of units/caravans/lodges which are currently at the site. A condition will be required to request details of the remaining units/caravans/lodges which are proposed to be sited to ensure that the proposal integrates well within the site and wider landscape without any significant adverse visual impact. Page 70
Page 71
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL A small number of trees have previously been felled within the proposed northern extension of the site which lie within this Area of Ancient Woodland. No more tree felling is proposed as part of this application. Whilst the loss of these trees is disappointing the felling of trees within an Area of Ancient Woodland does not constitute development that would require the benefit of planning permission. The loss of these trees has marginally exposed this part of the site visually. The site is located within an area of developed countryside where development is largely visible. The site is substantially backdropped and it is considered that the proposed development will be well contained within the landscape. In land use terms the proposed tourism development is compatible with the surrounding land uses which are mixed. The proposed development is it is considered to be relatively low key development that will respect and complement its surroundings. Overall it is considered that the proposed development will respect the existing character by taking opportunities to improve and enhance an existing tourist offering which will benefit the local economy. The applicant is also proposing additional landscaping and planting within the site seeking to aid landscape value to the site. It is considered that appropriate landscaping measures will ensure that the proposed development integrates well within the surrounding landscape. The development the subject of this planning application is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: All Development which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape making use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site; and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. 5.10 NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The application indicates the provision of a private water supply with a private drainage system comprising a biodisc treatment plant proposed due to the lack of public drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. Scottish Water have been consulted and have raised no objections to the proposed development. The Environmental Health Unit have been consulted with regards to the proposed private water supply and have raised no objections subject to a suspensive pre-start condition will be required to secure a report on the proposed private water supply to ensure that it is sufficient to serve the proposed development and does not impact on existing users of the same supply or adjacent supplies. The Council’s Building Standards Service will apply sufficient control over the private drainage arrangements at Building Warrant stage. With a condition to secure a report on the proposed private water supply, the proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 18 and is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 04, Sustainable Development, Policy 58, Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation and Policy 60, Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems which seek to ensure that suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments and give support to private water Page 71
Page 72
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL supply and drainage arrangements where connection to the public systems is not available. 5.11 NPF Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. As detailed at NPF4 Policy 18 above, the development the subject of this planning application proposes a private water supply, the details of which will be sought by planning condition. A biodisc is proposed to be installed at the western side of the site which will be controlled by SEPA and Building Standards under their remit. The Flood Risk Assessor has also been consulted and has raised no objections to the proposed development subject to the provision of a planning condition to ensure that surface water drainage is undertaken in accordance with CIRIA C753 at detailed design stage. Post development surface water runoff should be attenuated to pre-development amounts. A note to applicant will also be required to advise as a recommendation that Finished Floor Levels (FFLs) to be elevated to at least 0.3m above the surrounding ground. With regards to the management of rain and surface water at the site, this will be controlled thorough a condition imposed on the grant of permission to secure a suitable sustainable drainage system for the site. The proposal raises no flood issues and aligns with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policies 55, 58 and 60. 5.12 NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 29 seeks to encourage rural economic activity, innovation and diversification whilst ensuring that the distinctive character of the rural area and the service function of small towns, natural assets and cultural heritage are safeguarded and enhanced. NPF4 Policy 29a and 29c provides direct support for development proposals in remote rural areas that contribute to the viability, sustainability and diversity of rural communities, including farms and diversification of existing businesses. This proposal seeks to improve and enhance an existing tourism offering at the site. In this regard, the proposed development is considered to adhere to NPF4 Policy 29 through the provision of appropriate development that assists in supporting balanced and sustainable rural populations. 5.13 NPF4 – Policy 30 – Tourism NPF4 Policy 30 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate sustainable tourism development which benefits local people, is consistent with our net zero and nature commitments, and inspires people to visit Scotland. Policy 30(a) supports tourism development in locations identified in the LDP with a requirement in Part (b) of this policy for developments to take into account a number of criteria. Page 72
Page 73
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL LDP2 Policy 23 sets out a presumption in favour of new or improved tourist facilities and accommodation where: • The development is in a form scale and location which is consistent with its surroundings; and • The proposals respect and integrate well with the landscape/townscape character and amenity of the surrounding area; and • They are located in accessible locations, taking into account the scale and nature of the proposed development, and include proposals to widen the options for sustainable travel to access them (including public transport, cycling or on foot);and • They are well related to the existing built form of settlement areas or the existing development pattern outwith the settlement areas and avoid dispersed pattern of development unless the developer has demonstrated a locational requirement based upon the need to be near to the specific tourist interest being exploited and that the proposed development will not undermine these interests. The applicant contends that when assessing the application, the fact that it relates to an existing caravan and camping site must be given significant weight. The applicant also contends that the ‘Tourism Infrastructure’ designation already recognises and supports the aims and aspirations of Policy 30 of NPF4. The Planning Authority accepts this contention. It is therefore considered that the site would present a suitable opportunity for improvements and enhancement including minor extensions and a revised site layout (to accommodate additional units/caravans/lodges) that would meet the needs of the applicant and contribute to the local economy whilst respecting the existing rural community and surrounding natural and built environment. In this regard, the development would be in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 30 as underpinned by Local Development Plan Policies LDP 5 and LDP 9, supplementary guidance SG LDP TOUR 1, and Policy 23 of the proposed Local Development Plan 2. 6. Public Representations 6.1 At the time of writing this report, representations had been received by the Planning Authority from 43 respondents in relation to this planning application, 29 respondents raise objection and 14 raise support. 7. Conclusion 7.1 The development proposed by this application is considered to be development that will improve and enhance the use of an existing caravan and camping site which largely lies within a designated ‘Tourism Infrastructure’ Area as identified within the LDP2. The site is located within the designated CA within an LLA and has been supported by supporting information (including a Design and Access Statement) which has led officers to conclude that no further information is required in terms of landscape or visual impacts. It is the considered opinion of the Planning Authority that the proposal will not result in any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the surrounding LLA area or the qualities for which it has been identified. Page 73
Page 74
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL No objections have been received from consultees with regards to the proposed infrastructure to serve the proposed development. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy with the issues raised by third parties not amounting to material planning considerations that have not been addressed through the processing of the planning application. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Page 74
Page 75
" " © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/00745/PP O 1:4,000 0 30 6015 Meters Application Site Page 75
Page 76
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 77
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle. Reference No: 24/02193/PP Planning Hierarchy: Major Application Applicant: CALA Management Limited Proposal: Variation of Condition 04 relative to planning permission in principle reference 23/00145/PP - amendment to wording of Condition 04 in relation to road improvements. Site Address: Land North Of Cardross Primary School, Barrs Road Cardross (Kirkton Farm) 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 • Section 42 application to vary Condition 04 of permission 23/00145/PP to substitute alternative roads access design layout plan to that in approval. (ii) Other specified operations • Associated and incidental highway works to construct roads access. (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that conditional planning permission is granted in accordance with Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Area Roads Manager (Dated 11.02.25) – No Objection. Instructional condition requested to ensure road/footway layout and safety measures are provided in advance of works taking place to commence development on the allocated housing site. A&B Flooding Advisor (Dated 24.12.24) No Objection . Page 77 Agenda Item 5
Page 78
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL This response is a result of a modification to Condition 4 from the existing application 23/00145/PP. This condition is in relation to traffic control, hence, the response remains as existing, holding a no objections status. (D) HISTORY: 24/00144/AMSC - Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions 2,3,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,15,16 and 17 of consent 18/01444/PP (PPA-130-2071). Erection of residential development with associated access, infrastructure, open space, landscaping and miscellaneous works.(Proposed removal/alterations to conditions 4, 5 &7 of REF 15/01794/PPP) – Refused 08.10.24. Currently subject to an Appeal.(DPEA REF PPA-130-2093)) All documents relating to this appeal can be found on the DPEA website at the link below Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details Members are requested to note that the matters before them for determination in respect of this application are not the same as this appeal, which relates to other AMSC conditions and not condition 4 details. Any approval of this application would therefore not undermine the case the Council has presented at the ongoing planning appeal related to concerns on flooding and drainage design matters. 23/00145/PP – Section 42 Application for variation of Condition 2 relative to planning permission in principle reference 18/01444/PP (PP-130-2071) - amendment to wording of Condition 2 in relation to finished floor levels. Application approved at Planning Committee on 25/05/23. It is this permission that the current application seeks to amend, not the application permission which subject to appeal. 18/01444/PP/ PPA-130-2071– Removal of Conditions 4 and 5 and variation of condition 7 of planning permission in principle 15/01794/PPP (Site for the erection of residential development with associated access, infrastructure, open space, landscaping and miscellaneous works) in relation to roads arrangements. Members are requested to note that this application was subject to Non- Determination Appeal to The Scottish Ministers (DPEA). Members advised that had they been so empowered the application would have been refused at planning Committee. Permission was subsequently granted by appeal on 15th July 2019 under reference: PPA-130-2071. The conditions from this approval were carried forward to the Section 42 application granted under 23/00145/PP (with condition 02 altered as set out above). 15/01794/PPP – Planning Permission in Principle for ‘Site for the erection of residential development with associated access, infrastructure, open space, landscaping and miscellaneous works. Granted subject to conditions 26/01/17. There is associated planning history linked to this site in respect of its inclusion within Local Development Plans as a Housing allocation (Kirkton Farm). The site was included as a Housing Allocation within LDP 2015 as Housing Allocation site H2002 and has been retained in LDP 2 as Housing Allocation Site H2002. Therefore, as well as historic planning permission having been granted in principle for the development of the site in 2015 by the Council, and then by appeal by PPA-130- 2071 the site has forms part of the housing land supply supported by the current Local Development Plan 2. Page 78
Page 79
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (E) PUBLICITY: Yes Reg 20 Press Notice Expired 09.01.25 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: At time of writing some 99 representations have been received. Ninety eight of these are objections to the scheme and one letter of representation has been received. A full list of all of those who have made submissions is contained at Appendix B of this report and 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. A summary of the issues which have been raised is set out below: Matters Raised in Objections which are considered by officers to be material to the determination of this application: • The roads design , geometry and footpaths proposed are substandard and do not meet required national road safety design standards and will not cope with traffic increase from new housing development and existing users. The design is not safe for all users. Do not understand why local authority are not objecting to substandard plans. • The design as proposed will unacceptably impact upon the existing private access and sight lines for The Glen, Canda and Greyfriars making their accesses unsafe. • Mill Road Junction designed to be safe • Traffic Survey data referenced is not robust as its from 2015 and 2017. Road traffic has potentially increased. • No pedestrian surveys have been undertaken on Darleith Road • Road already has to accommodate large timber lorries and tractors • Darleith Road is a Core Path and used by pedestrians and horses. The new design is not safe given this designation and use. • Alterations proposed would not improve road safety • The proposed design amendments do not meet equalities legislation requirements for wheelchair users. Comment: The Area Roads Manager has evaluated the proposals and has raised no objection. These matters are evaluated further at the appropriate section of this report. Matters raised by Objectors which Officers consider have no substantive materiality to the determination of the application. • Design does not take into account third party land ownership Comment: The ownership of land required to deliver a planning permission which is subject to a suspensive condition is not a material planning consideration of any substantive weight. As the proposed condition 4 wording is suspensive, the access road geometry improvements proposed by this application have to be provided by the developer to the satisfaction of the Area Roads Manager before any works to build the housing can take place. The onus is therefore upon the developer to ensure that the proposals can be legally and lawfully implemented. This is not a matter for the Planning Authority to take a view on. • There is a lack of drainage details in the proposals and the road floods regularly. Page 79
Page 80
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Comment: Drainage details and designs are subject to AMSC submissions and not condition 4 submissions which relate to a proposed new road geometry layout. This application seeks approval in relation to proposed changes to the approved roads design layout plan. It does not seek to discharge other conditions related to drainage and flooding matters which are subject to consideration in other condition submissions. Members will note that the Council’s Flooding and Drainage advisor has provided no further comment on this basis. • The plan is not accurate or detailed enough to support the application • Inadequate lighting is proposed • The proposed steps to allow access to playground and school footpath are a safety hazard for children Comment: The Area Roads Manager is content with the details provided to support the planning application. He has undertaken on site measurements at critical points on the road to ensure that the roads geometry of plans are acceptable and accurate. Details of fences and boundaries are covered in other condition submission requirements (Condition 13). It must also be borne in mind that more detailed engineering construction drawings will be required to be approved by the Area Roads Manager as part of the RCC process where such safety matters will also be addressed. Lighting for the road, will also be required to be specified as part of this RCC process to ensure road safety is acceptable. • If allowed the housing development and new access will increase wear and damage to local the road network. • No information on shoring up the road on west side provided as it is crumbling. • If design doesn’t work, it will be for the Council to pick up the bill for any further works Comment: Ensuring the construction of any new road and footways meets necessary engineering construction standards for adoption and maintenance by the Roads Authority will be matters properly addressed under the RCC process, not through the consideration of a planning application. • Site is clearly unsuitable for housing development. • Community do not want this housing Development to go ahead • There are other fields that would be more suitable for housing • Concerned about green belt land continually being built upon. Comment: The proposals relate to an allocated Housing site both within the previous LDP 2015 and also the current Statutory Plan LDP 2 as allocation H2002. The allocation has been supported by Members and also by the Local Plan Inquiry Reporter. Green belt concerns are therefore not material to housing development on an allocated housing site, which in this instance also has an extant planning permission for housing. • Junction of Darleith Road and Main Road is inadequate and will be unsafe due to increased traffic movements. Comment: The traffic management measures associated with this junction are not part of the matters before members for determination and form part of the AMSC submissions currently subject to Appeal. The matters set out below are not considered material to the current determination and do not require a specific response: Page 80
Page 81
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • This timing of the application is unacceptable and prejudicial to community feedback being provided. • Several near misses with lorries already on Darleith Road. • Scotrail has reduced trains and car use will increase • Refuse Collection has been reduced how are all these new houses going to be serviced by refuse lorries • Delays to a patient travelling to hospital undertaking patient dialysis would occur through increased traffic on Darleith Road • Proposals would increase pollution in area • The road has never been subject to a planning permission and therefore no planning neighbour notifications for this element have been undertaken for the road design. • The proposals will result in increased noise to the Primary School (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 ☒ (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☐Yes ☒No ☐Yes ☒No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☒Yes ☐No Proposed Traffic Calming Darleith Road Kirkton Farm Cardross Stage 1 / 2 Road Safety Audit Report (SPA Ref No: 5423) Dated Feb 24 (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 81
Page 82
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 8 – Greenbelts NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 19 – Heating and Cooling NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 21 – Play, Recreation and Support NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety Productive Places Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted Feb 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 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design : All Development Policy 26 – Informal Public Outdoor Recreation and Leisure Related Development Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Page 82
Page 83
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 41 – Off Site Highway Improvements Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Homes for People Policy 64 – Housing Development on Allocated Sites Policy 67 – Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs Including Affordable Housing Policy 68 – Housing Greenspace High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees 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 Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • Argyll and Bute Council Roads Development Technical Guidance (April 2024) (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 Further PAC is not required for S42 applications. (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No Page 83
Page 84
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Officers consider that Members have sufficient information before them to make a decision without the need for a pre-determination Hearing. The proposal seeks to reword condition 04 by substituting a revised access layout for the approved access layout. The details of the new proposals are set out in the submitted drawing and associated Road Safety Audit Report.. . If the chair is so minded , the Area Roads Engineer has agreed make himself available to PPSL to answer any technical questions on road safety and design matters. Officers therefore do not feel a Hearing would add value to the determination process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • N/A (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 3.2 Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☒Yes ☐No Removal of some boundary trees to allow road construction will most likely be required. 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 (tick all relevant boxes) ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy (tick all relevant boxes) ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: Page 84
Page 85
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL ☐Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☒Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt LDP 2 : Allocated Housing Site H2002 (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations A Section 42 application is an application for a new planning permission for a development but 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. Planning permission in principle was first approved for this development following a Hearing on 26th January 2017. The site is identified as a housing allocation for 158 units within the adopted LDP 2, however, the applicant in the previous Planning Permission in Principle application ( 23/00145/PP), indicated that approximately 140 units were proposed. The AMSC application subject to appeal showed detailed layouts for 120 units. The site is located to the north of the settlement of Cardross and is bounded by Darleith Road to the west and a private access to the east. This private access is a continuation of Barrs Road. In this application, the applicant has applied to vary Condition 04 to alter the approved roads access design drawing. The applicant has submitted a supporting Road Safety Audit Report to justify the proposed new road design superseding of the currently approved access design. 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. There are no material considerations which would indicate otherwise. As there is a procedural requirement to re-issue the previous permission in its entirety, Officers have also considered whether this new grant of permission has material planning consequences for any other planning conditions. Officers are content that there are no material planning consequences for any other conditions with the exception of LDP 2 policy reference updates to conditions. Taking account of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be approved subject to conditions. A full report is included at Appendix A of this report. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No Officers consider that a minor departure from LDP 2 Policy 38 is acceptable in this instance given the planning history and circumstances of this particular case. (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The primary matter under consideration is whether Condition 04 can be reworded as suggested but still provide a roads access design which is acceptable to the Area Roads Engineer in terms of design and safety matters. Page 85
Page 86
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The primary and defining consideration on whether this would be acceptable are the expert views of the Council’s Area Roads Manager. The Roads Officer is content that from the information provided, and in particular the supporting Road Safety Audit, that the condition can be approved as the proposed amended scheme is a better and safer design that that previously approved. This is confirmed in the response dated 08.01.25. All relevant matters have been taken into account when appraising this S42 application. It is considered that the proposal 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. There are no material considerations which would indicate otherwise to suggest that planning permission should not be granted in this instance. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan 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 the development plan is considered to be justified by the planning history and circumstances of the case. The revised road layout (Drawing 22217-SK-35 Rev D) 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 ( DrawingTIAVCAR2_SK002 Rev B) approved by the Reporter. The footway width varies along its length between 2.0m , 1.2m to 0.8m locally. Whilst the current proposals do not fully comply with the ideal pedestrian provision they have been designed to keep pedestrians on the development side of the road thus removing the requirement to cross the carriageway and the associated risks with this. This is considered to be acceptable as it considered to represent a safer design which is a betterment to that originally approved. (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: David Moore Date: 03.03.25 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 05.03.25 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 86
Page 87
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/02193/PP 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; 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. Page 87
Page 88
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 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. Page 88
Page 89
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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 CouncilLDP 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; 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; Page 89
Page 90
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 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); Page 90
Page 91
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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. Page 91
Page 92
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • This consent constitutes a Planning Permission in Principle under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended, and as such does not authorise the commencement of development until matters requiring the further consent of the Planning Authority have been satisfied. • Application(s) for Approval of Matters specified in Conditions must be made in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 within the time limits specified in Section 59 of the Act. • Having regard to Regulation 12, application(s) for the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions must be submitted within 3 years from the date of which Planning Permission in Principle was granted. The exception being where an earlier submission for the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions was refused or dismissed on appeal, in which case only one further application in respect of all outstanding matters requiring further approval of the Planning Authority may be submitted within a period of 6 months from determination of the earlier application. Any elements of the Planning Permission in Principle for which further approval of the Planning Authority has not been sought within the time periods summarised above will no longer be capable of being implemented within the terms of this permission. • The development to which this planning permission in principle relates must commence no later than 2 years from the date of the requisite approval of any matters specified in conditions (or, in the case of approval of different matters on different dates, from the date of the requisite approval for the last such matter being obtained), whichever is the later. If the development has not commenced within this period, then this planning permission in principle shall lapse. • In order to comply with Section 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, prior to works commencing on site, it is the responsibility of the developer to complete and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date on which the development will start. • In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed. • The consideration to reduce the 30mph speed restriction should be assessed in conjunction with Police Scotland and the Council’s Roads Officer. • An application for a Roads Construction Consent is required to be submitted and approved. Thereafter a financial security bond will require to be lodged with the Council’s legal services section before any works commence on site. • In order to meet obligations under wildlife legislation and to protect any breeding birds on the site, any vegetation removal should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season (March – August). If vegetation removal is planned during the bird nesting season, a suitably qualified ecologist should inspect the area for the presence of nests up to a maximum of one day prior to removal. If an active nest is discovered vegetation cannot be removed and must be left in situ until the young have fledged. Page 92
Page 93
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Japanese Knotweed has been reported on or near this site. It is a highly invasive weed that is capable of structural damage. Disturbance will cause it to spread and its movement is controlled by legislation. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is illegal to cause it to spread in the wild. You are strongly advised to survey the site for the presence of Japanese Knotweed at an early stage and before any site clearance work, and, if found, to formulate plans to control or eradicate it. Please note that Japanese Knotweed can be far more extensive than the visible parts on the surface and that the underground parts of the plant may extend laterally up to 7 metres beyond this. Page 93
Page 94
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/02193/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. A Section 42 application is an application for a new planning permission for a development but with different conditions from those attached to a previous permission for that development. This appraisal will consider whether, if planning permission is granted subject to the proposed amendments to the condition as imposed on planning permission 23/00145/PP, the proposal would remain in accordance with the statutory development plan, and if not, whether other material considerations indicate the proposal is acceptable and should be approved. In determining such an application, the Planning Authority can only consider changes to the conditions on the previous permission. The principle of the development is not under consideration and the original planning permission(s) remain live. 2. Location of Development 2.1. The application site is located on the northern edge of Cardross village and comprises a fairly level field, which is in use for grazing. It is bounded by Darleith Road to the west, and Barrs Road to the east, each of which provides access, directly or indirectly, to the principal road through Cardross, the A814. Cardross Primary School is located immediately to the south of the site. 2.2. Condition 04 of the permission to which this application relates, references a drawing showing access arrangements to the site along Darleith Road and it is this specific element of the proposal which is subject to this Section 42 application. 3. Settlement Strategy 3.1. Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material planning considerations indicate otherwise. The principle of development has been established under the original permission and, further established by the granting of 23/00145/PP. 3.2. The application site has also been carried through from LDP 2015 to LDP 2 as an allocated Housing Site Ref: H2002 . Consequently, it is not necessary to revisit whether it is compliant with the settlement strategy. 4. Compliance with National Policy Framework 4 ( NPF 4) and Local Plan Policy (LDP 2) 4.1. The Development Plan framework has changed since the determination of the original application, and also the determination of 23/00145/PP. The Development Plan now comprises NPF4, and LDP 2 . 4.2. As approval of this application will grant a fresh planning permission, it is necessary to address the relevant policy framework for the application where the statutory plan Page 94
Page 95
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL framework differs from that of the previous permission, in addition to addressing the specific roads matters raised by the desire to change the wording of Condition 04. 4.3. It should be noted that evaluation of the granting of permission for the site against NPF 4 policies was undertaken when approving 23/00145/PP, however since that date LDP 2 has superseded the Local Development Plan 2015. Therefore, a further evaluation to identify any material changes in the planning policy framework within LDP 2 which would suggest that this new planning permission should not be granted is required. 4.4. The nature of the permission to be issued, stemming from a PPP, requires substantial amounts of additional information to be submitted to the Planning Authority for approval to discharge the proposed conditions. These submissions will require to address current policy requirements within NPF 4 and LDP 2 and will ensure that the details of any proposals will accord with current NPF 4 and LDP 2 policies. These details are not matters that form part of the current application, and therefore a detailed evaluation of wider planning policy matters is not considered to be required in this instance to competently evaluate the planning policy merits of this application. 4.5. Evaluation of the proposals against the relevant roads design policies in LDP 2 are however relevant to this application. This is set out at section 5 below. 5. Compliance with LDP 2 Policy 38 and Roads Policy Evaluation 5.1. The approved Condition 04 states: 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 plan TIAvcar2_SK002B 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. v) 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. 5.2. The applicants propose to replace the reference to plan TIAvcar2_SK002B with plan22217-SK-35 Rev D. The area Roads Manager has raised no objection to the proposals commenting that : In review of the above, and in light of the supporting Road Safety Audit for the proposed alterations, I confirm that Roads are satisfied that the wording of the condition be amended in line with amended design proposals. With that, Roads identify condition 4 ii) to contain the wording in relation to road improvement and condition that Roads are satisfied for this to be changed to state the following: Page 95
Page 96
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL ii) Road improvement between Mill Road and the proposed development site entrance as identified on plan 22217-SK-35 Rev D – Darleith Road Upgrades Cala Alternative Option 3 Furthermore, it must be added that while Roads accept the proposed is potentially more desirable than previously presented plan TIAvcar2_SK002B, we would highlight that there may be challenges to the deliverability. As such, the deliverability of the proposal rests with the developer. In light of potential difficulties in deliverability, and concerns for the road safety of all road users, we would finally condition that the planning permission requires that the road improvements are delivered prior to works commencing on site 5.3. The applicant is proposing to amend the wording of Condition 04 to replace the referenced approved plan to the new proposed roads layout plan reference. At the request of the Area Roads Manager, Officers have also added a further instructional requirement within the condition to ensure that the road improvement work is provided to the satisfaction of the Area Roads Manager in advance of any works taking pace to commence works to build the housing. This will address any concerns relating to control of necessary land to carry out the works. It is therefore proposed that the condition will read as follows (amended words highlights in bold for ease of reference): 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 plan 22217-SK-35 Rev D. The access road improvements as set out on this approved plan 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. vi) 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. 5.4. Since the consideration of permission 23/00145/PP, the Council has published Road Design Technical Guidance (April 2024) against which new applications should be evaluated and LDP 2 Policy 38 has been adopted. 5.5. LDP 2 Policy 38 states that: Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads The construction standards to be applied for Public Roads are as follows:- Page 96
Page 97
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL a) They shall be constructed to a standard as specified in the Council’s Roads Development Guide. All roads submitted for adoption as a public road should form a continuous system with the existing public roads. b) In areas with a predominant system of single track roads with passing places, housing development of between 6 and 10 dwelling units may be accepted served by the “Variable Standard of Adoption” as set out in the Council’s Roads Development Guide, c) Roads which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road will require consultation with Transport Scotland 5.6. The current access proposals do not fully meet the technical standards set out in the Roads Development Guide (now complimented by the Roads Development Technical Guidance April 2024). Officers also note that this is a supporting technical note and does not form part of the statutory plan. 5.7. In this instance a planning permission already exists for a less safe access design. The current proposals are considered by the Area Roads Manager to be safer than the currently approved drawing, and therefore Roads Officers have taken a pragmatic view and consider that the delivery of improved and safer access arrangements to those currently approved are desirable and therefore the design changes proposed are considered acceptable in this particular instance. 5.8. More particularly in respect of this design change. On review of the reporter approved drawing TIAVCAR2_SK002 Rev B, the ‘safe’ pedestrian provision/ pedestrian ‘step-off’ is achieved through the existence and creation of grass verge alongside the carriageway. The proposed drawing does not detail a minimum width of this verge, nor does it suggest that the verge will be continuous along the road length between the proposed development and the existing pedestrian provision at the junction with Mill Road. Furthermore, the proposed pedestrian ‘step-off’ is presented on the westward side of the existing access road, consequently this would necessitate pedestrians of all ages and abilities to cross the carriageway twice if travelling between the proposed development and the existing pedestrian provision located from Mill Road. Furthermore it should be noted that a verge does not guarantee a level surface with step free access for all, consequently this may encourage pedestrians, that require a level surface over which to traverse, onto the carriageway. 5.9. When contrasted against drawing 22217-SK-35 Rev D it is recognised that the proposal offers a continuous footway along the eastward side of the existing access road, with the footway width varying along its length between 2.0m, 1.2m to 0.8m locally. Whilst it is recognised that the current proposals do not fully comply with the desirable pedestrian provision of a 2.0m continuous width of footway, the proposed incorporates a pedestrian provision on the development side of the road thus removing the requirement to cross the carriageway and the associated risks with doing so. Additionally, the creation of a hard surface footway offers a level surface over which pedestrians can traverse in all weathers. In conclusion, whilst the proposed does not achieve the desirable standards for footway provision, the proposed changes are considered to represent an improvement and a safer design which is a betterment than that which was originally approved. 5.10. The proposals are therefore considered to be justified minor departure from LDP 2 Policy 38 and the referenced standards given the specific circumstances of this case and its planning history. Page 97
Page 98
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/02193/PP LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Objection 1. A Shaw Hillside Road Cardross G82 5LU 2. Alexandra Easton 10 Napier Avenue Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5LY 3. Alison Wood 15 Kilmahew Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 4. Allyson Preston Darleith Lodge Darleith Road CARDROSS 5. Andrew Parlane 26 River View Crescent Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5LT 6. Avril Williams Kirkton Farm Cottage Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 7. Cameron Williams Kirkton Farm Cottage Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 8. Christine Hendry 9. Christine Nevin 10. Claire Price 11. Dr Charlotte Francoz Hillview Darleith Road Cardross G825EZ 12. Dr Claire McGonagle 11 Glenan Gardens West Argyle Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 13. Dr David Galloway 19 Kilmahew Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 14. Dr Duncan Gregory Middle Lodge Drumhead Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 15. Dr Heather Munro 12 Borrowfield Cardross G82 5NL 16. Dr James Stevenson 21 Kilmahew Avenue Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5NG 17. Dr Julie E Lang Ellismhor Darleith Road Cardross G82 5EZ 18. Dr Paul Robb 10 Napier Avenue Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5LY 19. Edmund Wardle Drumhead Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 20. Eileen Murray 6 Napier Avenue Cardross Dumbarton G82 5LY 21. Gail Thomas 40 Hillside Road Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5LX 22. Gillian Macdonald Kirkton House Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 23. Gordon Hendry Greyfriars Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton 24. Guy Cook Windycroft Shore Road Cardross Argyll & Bute 25. Henry Sweeney Upper Grayfriars Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 26. Ian Williams Kirkton Farm Cottage Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 27. Jacquelyn McInally 28. Jay Thundercliffe 29. Jennifer Mansley Kirkton Granary Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 30. John F Robins 39 Bainfield Road Cardross Dumbarton G82 5JQ 31. John Watkins Darleith Stables House Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 32. John Young 33. Karen Renaud 8 Kilmahew Avenue Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5NG 34. Kate Sweeney Greyfriars Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 35. Keith Probert 36. Kimberly Parlane 26 Riverview Crescent Cardross G82 5LT 37. Lesley Miller Flat 4 Geilston Court Cardross G82 5QE 38. Lorna Lee 39. Margaret Thomas 45 Napier Avenue Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5LY 40. Mavourneen Watkins Darleith Stables House Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll Page 98
Page 99
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 41. Mhairi Terrace Westlade North Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 42. Mick Henson 43. Miles Williams Kirkton Farm Cottage Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 44. Miss Amanda Murray Drumhead Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 45. Miss Claire Blackwood Kirkton Cottage Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 46. Mr And Mrs S J Lee 4 Ritchie Ave Cardross 47. Mr Barry James Maughan Lygon Cottage Station Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 48. Mr Brian Craven 1 Kilmahew Grove Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 49. Mr Chris Moore 17 Napier Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 50. Mr Duncan Stirling Woodcroft Church Avenue Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5NS 51. Mr Eric Duncan 11A Muirend Road Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5LQ 52. Mr Forbes Hart 49 Barrs Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 53. Mr Gerard Lindsay 11 Glenan Gardens West Argyle Street Helensburgh Argyll And Bute 54. Mr Henry Boswell Darleith House Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 55. Mr Hugh Hamill 34 Muirend Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 56. Mr Ian Fleming 1 Kilmahew Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 57. Mr Jim Gibb The Machair Main Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 58. Mr John Middleton Kindar Reay Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 59. Mr Kevin Costello 12 Muirend Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 60. Mr Matthew Scott Laigh Barrs Main Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 61. Mr Michael Hutcheson 30 Barrs Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 62. Mr Philip Barlow Kirkton Cottage Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 63. Mr Robert Harvey Barrachan Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 64. Mr Robert MacLachlan North Kirkton Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 65. Mr Scott Elliott East Lodge Drumhead Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 66. Mr Thomas McInally Suite G.09, The Greenlaw Works 6 S Greenlaw Way Newton Mearns 67. Mrs Alison Stewart Knowhead Cottage Red Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 68. Mrs C Court 3 Fairway Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 69. Mrs Caroline Forbes 28A Barrs Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 70. Mrs Caroline McNair 63 Barrs Road Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5PR 71. Mrs Elizabeth Gregory Middle Lodge Drumhead Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll 72. Mrs Jane Searle 51 Bainfield Road Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5JQ 73. Mrs Janet Miller Flat 4 Geilston Court Cardross G82 5QE 74. Mrs Jean McKillop 18 Napier Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 75. Mrs Joanna Boswell Darleith House Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 76. Mrs Linda Costello 12 Muirend Road Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5LG 77. Mrs Linda Scott Laigh Barrs Main Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 78. Mrs Lynda Broad Lygon Cottage Station Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 79. Mrs Madeleine Badger Green Cottage Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 80. Mrs Morag Elliott East Lodge Drumhead Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 81. Mrs Sandra Paterson 3 Villafield Court Station Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 82. Ms Erin Gregory Middle Lodge Drumhead Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 83. Ms Isabel Cullen 1 Brooks Cottages Brooks Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 84. Ms Janet Peattie 17 Napier Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 85. Ms Judith Spark 50 Kirkton Road Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5PL 86. Norman Foster 87. Norman Gatensby 88. Patricia Craig Westneuk Kirkton Rd CARDROSS G82 5PN 89. Patrick Trust Beaumaris Church Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute Page 99
Page 100
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 90. Richard Smith 8 Kilmahew Drive Cardross Dumbarton G82 5NA 91. Rob Irving Creran Church Avenue Cardross. 92. Robert Murray 6 Napier Avenue Cardross Dumbarton G82 5LY 93. Ruth Lightbody 3 Barrs Road Cardross Argyll And Bute G82 5PT 94. Ruth Preston Darleith Lodge Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And Bute 95. Stewart H Macdonald Kirkton House, Darleith Road, Cardross G82 5EZ 96. Victoria Ashman 97. Wendy Ashman 98. William Major 41 Hillside Road Cardross G82 5LU Representation Andrew Miller Kirkton Byre Darleith Road Cardross Argyll And But Page 100
Page 101
" " "" " " " " " " "" " " " " " " " " " " "" " " " " " "" " " " " "" " " " """ © Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 Location Plan Relative to: 24/02193/PP O 1:4,000 0 30 6015 Meters Application Site Page 101
Page 102
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 103
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 19th March 2025 PROPOSED PROGRAMME OF PLANNING TRAINING FOR MEMBERS 1. INTRODUCTION 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. The training has usually taken place in the hour before the Planning, Protective Services and Licencing Committee (PPSLC), although in the past workshops and site visits have also been organised. This report seeks endorsement of a provisional training programme from April 2025 to March 2026. Further suggestions on any additional topics from Members would also be most welcome. With this in mind a slot has been left vacant in order to accommodate additional training requirements identified through the course of the year. It is intended to continue to deliver the majority of the training by way of virtual sessions associated with the PPSL calendar of meetings unless workshops are proposed which would need to be on a separate date. As before, it would not be intended to restrict the availability of training to the PPSL Committee membership and there would be an open invitation to all Council Members to attend any of the sessions. 2. INDICATIVE PROGRAMME FOR 2025/26 Training Proposed 1 Competent Motions – (may require 1.5 hours)- Committee Day Training Officer led 2 Local Place Plans Committee Day Training - Officer led 3 Local Living - Committee Day Training - Officer led 4 Site visit - Dunbeg Phase 3 Officer led 4 SEPA – Flooding tbc – Committee Day Training 5 Ancient Woodland Training - Committee Day Training Woodland Trust (date to be confirmed) 6 Biodiversity Update, Committee Day Training - Officer led Page 103 Agenda Item 6
Page 104
Classification: OFFICIAL 7 Environmental Impact Assessment - Committee Day Training - Officer led 8 Enforcement –Committee Day Training - Officer led 9 Use of planning conditions and obligations - Officer led 10 To be advised by Members 3. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members: i) Agree to continuing an ongoing programme of planning related training for Members of the PPSL Committee, which should also be open to any other Members not currently involved in planning decision-making; ii) Endorse 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. 3. IMPLICATIONS 3.1 Policy: none 3.2 Financial: It is considered that the level of training required can be delivered internally from existing resources without recourse to having to buy in training from external providers. 3.3 Legal: none 3.4 HR: none 3.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: none 3.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics: none 3.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: none 3.5.3 Islands: none 3.6 Climate Change: none 3.7 Risk: none 3.8 Customer Service: none 3.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): none Author of Report: Sandra Davies Date: 05.03.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 104
Page 105
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 19th March 2025 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. Members are advised that the review has now been concluded supporting a 10% increase and the fares have been fixed with effect from 22 April 2025. 2.0 RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The Committee is asked to note the above and that a further review of the taxi fares will take place within 18 months of 22 April 2025 as required in terms of section 17 of the Act. Page 105 Agenda Item 7
Page 106
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 19th March 2025 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 In terms of Section 17 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, the Local Authority requires to fix maximum fares and other charges in connection with the hire of taxis operating in their area and to review the scales for taxi fares and other charges on a regular basis. Members agreed to commence with the review process on 23 October 2024. At their meeting on 18 December 2024 the Committee agreed: 1. To propose that there be an increase of 10% to the existing scales and that this take effect from 22 April 2025; 2. To authorise the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support to advertise this proposal and to invite any responses within one month of the advertisement and report back to Members at their meeting on 19 March 2025; and 3. Should no objections or representations be received in relation to the proposal, to delegate to the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, in consultation with the Chair of the PPSL Committee to conclude the review without the requirement for the Committee to consider a further report on the review:- 3.2 Following the Committee’s decision on 19 December 2024 adverts were placed in local newspapers week commencing 6 January 2025 proposing an increase of 10% to the existing fares. In terms of this any representations had to be made by 10 February 2025. 3.3 As no representations were received by that date the Head of Legal and Regulatory Support in consultation with the Chair of PPSL gave effect to the increase of 10% to the fares take place. 3.4 All operators were notified by letter on 12 February 2025 of the decision and were provided with a new tariff card. They were advised they had 14 days to appeal against the scales to the Traffic Commissioner for Scotland. 3.5 The Traffic Commissioner for Scotland has not been in touch to confirm an appeal has been received. Page 106
Page 107
3.6 Adverts were placed week commencing 10 March 2025 in the local press confirming that no change to the existing scales and that this takes effect on 22 April 2025 as required in terms of section 18A of the Act. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The review of the taxi fares has now been completed. The next review will require to be concluded within 18 months of 22 April 2025 in terms of section 18 of the Act. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy-none 5.2 Financial -none 5.3 Legal – The Council require to review taxi fares in terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 5.4 HR -none 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty:-none 5.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics-none 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty-none 5.5.3 Islands -none 5.6 Climate Change-none 5.7 Risk-none 5.8 Customer Service-none 5.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC)-none Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead: Cllr Kieron Green For further information contact: Sheila MacFadyen, Senior Solicitor Tel: 01546 604265 Email Sheila.macfadyen@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 107
Page 108
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 109
1 Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 19 MARCH 2025 ________________________________________________________________________ UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 36 EARRAGHAIL RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT DECISION _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 22/00445/S36 ECU REFERENCE: ECU00003421 DPEA REFERENCE: WIN-130-8 CASE DETAIL: PROPOSED RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 13 ONSHORE WIND TURBINES WITH A GENERATING CAPACITY OF AROUND 78MW, SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY AROUND 5MW AND BATTERY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES AROUND 25MW SITE ADDRESS: EARRAGHAIL RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT – LOCATED ON THE KINTYRE PENINSULA, BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF TARBERT TO THE NORTHEAST AND THE VILLAGE OF SKIPNESS TO THE SOUTH APPLICANT: SCOTTISHPOWER RENEWABLES (UK) STATUS: REFUSED BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS ON 14th FEBRUARY 2025 _______________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In Scotland, any application to construct or operate an onshore power generating station, with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any ministerial authorisation given includes a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is then no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed if authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. 1.2 Argyll & Bute Council objected to this application, consequently, a Public Inquiry was required to be held. The Inquiry, which Officers participated in was conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (landscape and visual impact inquiry session 5-7 March 2024 - community hearing session 12 March 2024 - policy and conditions hearing sessions 14 March 2024) 1.3 This report summarises the decision made by Scottish Ministers to REFUSE Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission for the Earraghail Renewable Energy Development. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report. Page 109 Agenda Item 8a
Page 110
2 Classification: OFFICIAL 3. REPORTERS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO SCOTTISH MINISTERS Reporter’s Conclusions 3.1 In balancing the factors for and against the proposal, the Reporters recognise the nationally significant contribution that the proposal would make towards meeting Scotland’s climate change objectives and emission reduction targets. They also recognise its significant adverse environmental effects, in particular the significant adverse landscape and visual impacts that would arise in relation to North Arran National Scenic Area. These are summarised below. • There would be significant and adverse visual impacts at a variety of locations within the North Arran National Scenic Area. • Those visual impacts would result in significant and adverse effects on two (‘distinctive coastline’ and ‘outdoor recreation’) of the special qualities for which the area has been designated. • The significant and adverse impact on the distinctive coastline special quality relates to ways in which it is expressed on the north coast between Millstone Point and Lochranza, and on the west coast between Lochranza and Catacol. • The significant impact on the outdoor recreation special quality relates to how they are expressed on those same stretches of coastline, and at locations within the western hills (including Beinn Bhreac and its approach route from Thundergay) and the northern mountains (including Caisteal Abhail and upper Gleann Easan Biorach). • The significant impacts on these special qualities would be such that the objectives of designation and the overall integrity of the area would be compromised. • The daytime visual effects of the proposed development would themselves be sufficient to result in the significant adverse effects which we have identified for the special qualities, and their compromising effect on the objective of designation and overall integrity of the area. • If an aviation detection lighting system could not be successfully deployed, the daytime effects would additionally occur at twilight and nighttime. 3.2 The proposed development would also have unacceptable impacts on the primary surveillance radars of NATS and Glasgow Prestwick Airport, and air traffic services that they currently provide in airspace in the vicinity of the proposed wind turbines, if appropriate mitigations, as sought through the relevant conditions in Appendix 1, could not be secured. 3.3 The proposed development would have other effects that we have assessed as being contrary to other provisions in the relevant local and national development plan policies, when considered individually. These include: Page 110
Page 111
3 Classification: OFFICIAL • significant adverse effects on the integrity of South Cowal Local Landscape Area and on the qualities for which it has been identified, arising from significant and adverse visual impacts at locations along the coastline from Portavadie to Ardlamont Point; • significant landscape and visual effects in other parts of Argyll and Bute including on the Kintyre Way between Tarbert and Skipness, and for people on outer Loch Fyne and the Kilbrannan Sound (for example ferry users and kayakers); • local level effects on golden eagles; and • some loss of ancient woodland and other semi-natural broadleaved woodland. 3.4 The proposed development would have other merits which would be supported by other provisions in relevant development plan policies, when considered individually. These include: • biodiversity enhancements, in particular the restoration of degraded peatland and heathland; • local and national economic and employment benefits; and • a new circular walking route, bothy, viewpoint and stone seating along section one of the Kintyre Way. 3.5 All of the adverse impacts the Reporters have identified and summarised above, with the sole exception of that on the North Arran National Scenic Area, are outweighed when considerable weight is given to the proposed development’s contribution to renewable energy and net zero targets. However, they do not consider that this impact on North Arran National Scenic Area is similarly outweighed. 3.6 Informed by their findings above, they find the proposal overall to be contrary to the development plan and the Onshore Wind Policy Statement. They find that there are no other relevant considerations which lead them to make a recommendation contrary to policy. 3.7 Accordingly, they recommend that consent should be refused. Reporters Recommendation to Scottish Ministers 3.8 Consent should not be granted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989, nor deemed consent under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). If Ministers disagree with this recommendation and are minded to grant consent, this should be subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1. Consent may not be granted prior to the satisfactory completion of an appropriate assessment in relation to the effects of the proposal on the western acidic oak woodlands feature of the Tarbert Woods Special Area of Conservation. 4.0 The Scottish Ministers’ Conclusions Conclusions on the Environment 4.1 The Scottish Ministers are satisfied that the EIA Report, its AI 2023 and AEI November 2023 have been produced in accordance with the EIA Regulations, and that the Page 111
Page 112
4 Classification: OFFICIAL relevant procedures regarding publicity and consultation laid down in those Regulations have been followed. 4.2 The Scottish Ministers have fully considered the EIA Report, AI 2023, AEI November 2023, the consultation responses, representations, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the PI Report and are satisfied that the environmental impacts of the proposed Development have been sufficiently assessed. The Scottish Ministers have taken the environmental information into account when reaching their decision. 4.3 Taking the above assessment into account the Scottish Ministers consider that the proposed Development would have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts on the SQs of North Arran NSA that go beyond localised, which cannot be mitigated. There are also significant impacts on the SQs of the North Arran NSA as a consequence of the proposed Development’s aviation lighting which are not mitigated by the currently proposed aviation lighting scheme. 4.4 The Scottish Ministers are satisfied, having regard to current knowledge and methods of assessment, that this reasoned conclusion addresses the likely significant effects of the proposed Development on the environment. The Scottish Ministers are satisfied that this reasoned conclusion is up to date. The Scottish Ministers Determination 4.5 As set out above, the seriousness of climate change, its potential effects, and the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions, remain a priority for the Scottish Ministers. Scotland’s renewable energy and climate change targets, energy policies and planning policies are all relevant considerations when weighing up the proposed Development. NPF4, Scotland’s Energy Strategy and the OWPS make it clear that renewable energy deployment remains a priority of the Scottish Government. These are all matters which should be afforded significant weight in favour of the proposed Development. 4.6 The Scottish Ministers consider that the proposed Development, if deployed, would create net economic benefits, and deliver renewable energy benefits that would contribute to supporting climate change mitigation and are wholly in accordance with Scottish Government’s climate change ambitions. In these respects, the proposed Development would contribute to sustainable development, and this has been considered when reaching a decision. These benefits, however, must be considered carefully in the context of the negative impacts on the natural environment and whether, on balance, they are acceptable. 4.7 The Scottish Ministers acknowledge, in accordance with both NPF4 and the OWPS, that meeting our climate ambitions will require a rapid transformation across all sectors of our economy and society, however this does not negate the continuing requirement to ensure that the right development happens in the right place. 4.8 The Scottish Ministers have considered the Application, the EIA Report, AI 2023, AEI November 2023, consultation responses and public representations alongside the Reporters’ considerations and subsequent conclusions. Their conclusion is that the proposed Development would provide net economic benefits and renewable energy benefits. However, on balance, these benefits would not outweigh the significant adverse effects by day and night on the North Arran NSA. The Scottish Ministers do not consider that the social, environmental, or economic benefits of the proposed Development can be construed as significant or nationally important to the extent that Page 112
Page 113
5 Classification: OFFICIAL they clearly outweigh the significant adverse effects on the SQs for which the North Arran NSA has been designated. 4.9 Ultimately, this leads the Scottish Ministers to the conclusion that despite the many factors in favour of the proposed Development, this is not the right Development in the right place and the proposed Development is therefore not acceptable overall. 4.10 The Scottish Ministers therefore consider the Application for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of Earraghail Wind Farm, within the planning authority area of Argyll & Bute Council, should be refused 4.11 The Scottish Ministers' decision is final, subject to the right of any aggrieved person to apply to the Court of Session for judicial review. Judicial review is the mechanism by which the Court of Session supervises the exercise of administrative functions, including how the Scottish Ministers exercise their statutory function to determine applications for consent. 4.12 The Reporters Inquiry Report and Scottish Ministers decision can be viewed on the DPEA (Directorate of Planning Environmental Appeals) website at the following link: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details 5.0 IMPLICATIONS Policy: None. Financial: None. Legal: None HR: None Fairer Scotland Duty: None Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None Socio-economic Duty: None Islands: None Climate Change: None – the proposal has been refused. Risk: None Customer Service: None The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): None Author: Arlene Knox Date: 26th February 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 113
Page 114
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 115
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 19 MARCH 2025 ________________________________________________________________________ UPDATE ON SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 36 CLACHAIG GLEN WIND FARM DECISION _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 22/00613/S36 ECU REFERENCE: ECU00002103 DPEA REFERENCE: WIN-130-7 CASE DETAIL: APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 FOR THE CLACHAIG GLEN WIND FARM, COMPRISING 12 TURBINES (FIVE WITH A TIP HEIGHT OF 200M, SEVEN WITH A TIP HEIGHT OF 185M), ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND BATTERY STORAGE UNITS SITE ADDRESS: CLACHAIG GLEN WIND FARM, LAND AT HIGH CLACHAIG FOREST, 1.8KM NORTHEAST, KINTYRE, ARGYLL APPLICANT: RWE RENEWABLES UK ONSHORE WIND LTD STATUS: APPLICATION GRANTED CONSENT BY SCOTTISH MINISTERS 8TH NOVEMBER 2024 _______________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In Scotland, any application to construct or operate an onshore power generating station, with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any ministerial authorisation given includes a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is then no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed if authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. 1.2 Argyll & Bute Council objected to this application, consequently, a Public Inquiry was required. The Inquiry, which Officers participated in was conducted by a Reporter(s) appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (20th – 24th November 2023). 1.4 This report summarises the decision made by Scottish Ministers to GRANT Section 36 consent and deemed planning permission for Clachaig Glen wind farm. 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report. Page 115 Agenda Item 8b
Page 116
3. REPORTERS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO SCOTTISH MINISTERS Reporter’s Overall Conclusions 3.1 In balancing the factors for and against the proposal, the Reporter recognises the contribution that the proposal would make towards meeting climate change objectives and emission reduction targets; its net economic effects; and the benefits of peatland restoration. 3.2 The Reporter has also taken into account the significant adverse environmental effects, in particular: those to the host landscape to a maximum of 3km; the visual effects to the north, north-west and west to some 9km; visual effects on those approaching properties and working the land closest to the proposed turbines at North Muasdale (viewpoint 16); the aviation warning lighting effects on the Kintyre Way (viewpoint 13) and, in very limited periods, from Gigha; the cumulative landscape and visual effects; and the loss of blanket bog. 3.3 Furthermore, the Reporter notes that, with mitigation, no other significant effects are identified with respect to the proposed development. Reporters Recommendation to Scottish Ministers 3.4 Consent should be granted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 and planning permission should be deemed to be granted under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1 (of Reporter’s decision). 3.5 Consent may not be granted prior to the satisfactory completion of an appropriate assessment in relation to the effects of the proposal on Kintyre Goose Roosts SPA. 4.0 THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS’ CONCLUSIONS Conclusions on the environment 4.1 The Scottish Ministers are satisfied that the EIA Report has been produced in accordance with the EIA Regulations and that the relevant procedures regarding publicity and consultation laid down in those Regulations have been followed. 4.2 The Scottish Ministers have fully considered the EIA Report, the consultation responses, representations, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Public Inquiry Report and are satisfied that the environmental impacts of the proposed Development have been sufficiently assessed. The Scottish Ministers have taken the environmental information into account when reaching their decision. 4.3 Taking into account the assessment in their report, subject to conditions to secure environmental mitigation, the Scottish Ministers consider the environmental effects of the proposed Development are mostly overcome with the exception of significant landscape and visual impacts which are considered to be mostly localised. 4.4 The Scottish Ministers are satisfied having regard to current knowledge and methods of assessment, that this reasoned conclusion addresses the likely significant effects of the proposed Development on the environment. Ministers are satisfied that this reasoned conclusion is up to date. Page 116
Page 117
Acceptability of the proposed Development 4.5 As set out above, the seriousness of climate change, its potential effects and the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions, remain a priority for the Scottish Ministers. Scotland’s renewable energy targets and climate change ambitions, energy policies and planning policies are all material considerations when weighing up this proposed Development. NPF4, the Energy Strategy, and the OWPS make it clear that renewable energy deployment remains a priority of the Scottish Government. The OWPS in particular reaffirms the vital role for onshore wind in meeting Scotland’s energy generation targets and net zero emissions ambitions. This is a matter which should be afforded significant weight in favour of the proposed Development. 4.6 The transition to a low carbon economy is an opportunity for Scotland to take advantage of our natural resources to grow low carbon industries and create jobs. 4.7 The Scottish Ministers are satisfied that the proposed Development will provide a contribution to renewable energy targets and carbon savings. The Scottish Ministers are also satisfied that it is entirely consistent with the Scottish Government’s policy on the promotion of renewable energy and its net-zero emissions ambitions. 4.8 The Scottish Ministers are also satisfied that the proposed Development will not have any significant effects on any protected species, National Scenic Area or National Park. 4.9 The Scottish Ministers acknowledge that the proposed Development would result in some landscape and visual impacts, including cumulative and aviation lighting effects which are considered acceptable in the context of the benefits that the proposed Development will bring in terms of net economic benefit, contributing to renewable energy and climate change targets, while protecting the natural environment. The Scottish Ministers in making their determination on the Application, have had to balance the above considerations, decide what weight is to be given to each and reach a view as to where the balance of benefit lies. On balance, it is considered that the proposed Development is acceptable. 4.10 Taking all of the above into account, the Scottish Ministers are content that the proposed Development is supported by Scottish Government Policies and should be granted consent. The Scottish Minister’s Determination 4.11 Subject to the conditions set out in Annex 2 - Part 1 of their decision, the Scottish Ministers grant consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the construction and operation of the Clachaig Glen Wind Farm electricity generating station in the Argyll & Bute Council Planning Authority area as described in the Application and at Annex 1. 16 4.12 Subject to the conditions set out in Annex 2 - Part 2, the Scottish Ministers direct that planning permission is deemed to be granted under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of the Development described in the Application and at Annex 1. Section 36 consent and expiry of deemed planning permission 4.13 The consent hereby granted will last for a period of 35 years from the earlier of: x The date when electricity is first exported to the electricity grid network from all of the wind Page 117
Page 118
turbines hereby permitted; or x The date falling 18 months after electricity is generated from the first of the wind turbines hereby permitted. 4.14 Section 58(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires where planning permission is deemed to be granted, that it must be granted subject to a condition that the permission will expire if has not begun within a period of 3 years. 4.15 Section 58(1)(b) of that Act enables the Scottish Ministers to specify that a longer period is allowed before planning permission will lapse. The Scottish Ministers consider that due to the constraints, scale, and complexity of constructing such Developments, a 5-year time scale for the Commencement of development is typically appropriate. 4.16 The Scottish Ministers consider that 3 years is not to apply with regard to the planning permission granted above, and that planning permission is to lapse on the expiry of a period of 5 years from the date of this direction, unless the development to which the permission relates is begun before the expiry of that period. A condition has been imposed stating that development must be begun within 5 years beginning with the date on which the permission is deemed to be granted and if development has not begun at the expiration of that period, the planning permission will lapse in terms of section 58(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. 4.17 The Scottish Ministers’ decision is final, subject to the right of any aggrieved person to apply to the Court of Session for judicial review. Judicial review is the mechanism by which the Court of Session supervises the exercise of administrative functions, including how the Scottish Ministers exercise their statutory function to determine applications for consent. The rules relating to the judicial review process can be found on the website of the Scottish Courts. 4.18 The Reporters Inquiry Report and Scottish Ministers decision can be viewed on the DPEA (Directorate of Planning Environmental Appeals) website at the following link: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details 5.0 IMPLICATIONS Policy: None. Financial: None. Legal: None HR: None Fairer Scotland Duty: None Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None Socio-economic Duty: None Islands: None Climate Change: will contribute towards meeting climate change objectives and emission reduction targets. Risk: None Customer Service: None The Rights of the Child (UNCRC): None Author: Arlene Knox Date: 26th February 2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 118