Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 22 January 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 22 January 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 15 January 2025 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 22 JANUARY 2025 at 11:00 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 13 December 2024 (Pages 3 - 4) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 December 2024 at 10.00 am (Pages 5 - 16) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 16 December 2024 at 2.00 pm (Pages 17 - 18) (d) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 December 2024 at 11.00 am (Pages 19 - 24) (e) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 December 2024 at 2.30 pm (Pages 25 - 28) (f) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 December 2024 at 3.30 pm (Pages 29 - 30) 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) (Pages 31 - 56) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
5. CONFIRMING A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT LINTON, LINESIDE WALK, RHU (Pages 57 - 82) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 6. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ3 2024/25 (Pages 83 - 94) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for 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 FRIDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: David Logan, Head of Legal and Regulatory Support Shona Barton, Governance Manager Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader - Planning 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Amanda Hampsey, Mark Irvine and Andrew Kain. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest intimated. The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the press and public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3. EMERGENCY TREE PRESERVATION ORDER The Committee gave consideration to a report recommending a Tree Preservation Order be served on 4 individual trees within the garden ground of a property in Helensburgh. Decision The Planning Protective Services and Licensing Committee agreed the recommendations contained within the submitted report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 13 December 2024, submitted) Page 3 Agenda Item 3a
Page 4
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 5
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Alan McMillan, Applicant Bill Ball, Objector Iain Hamilton, Objector Frances Coyle, Objector Margaret Ross, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (A MCMILLAN, ROTHESAY) 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 proceeded by video call and Alan McMillan joined the meeting by MS Teams. Bill Ball, Ian Hamilton and Frances Coyle, Objectors, also proceeded by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Margaret Ross proceeded by audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 11 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. Page 5 Agenda Item 3b
Page 6
APPLICANT Mr McMillan acknowledged and advised that he appreciated neighbours’ concerns and uncertainty about this application for a short-term let licence at his property. He said that he hoped his responses submitted to each of the objections raised gave some insight into the high standards he kept himself to and expected from guests he accepted bookings from. He addressed each of the points summarised at section 4.3 of the report as follows: Noise He advised that except for one neighbour directly above his property, the apartment was self-contained. The perimeter consisted of one side brick to brick with a coffee shop, who had not objected to the application, the rear backed onto the bin store, and the front directly onto the high street. His closest neighbour resided at No. 2, which was divided by an exterior wall, a walkway then another brick wall. He advised that he had installed a noise monitoring system in his flat, which would send a text message to himself and anyone staying in the flat if noise levels went above a certain point. He would also be confirming to guests via both a digital and manual guest book of neighbourhood considerations. They would be asked not to play amplified music and to keep noise to a minimum when entering and exiting the building. He referred to some Objectors asking if he could guarantee that noise levels would not rise, and he advised that while others behaviour was out with his control, he would do as much as he could to prevent this with the mitigation methods he was putting in place. He said that he would also be on call to deal with any issues. Privacy and Security He advised that all his guests were vetted by the booking providers and that no guests were accepted without proof of identity. They were given a PIN code to access the building, which was only active while they were staying there and was deactivated once they left. Vulnerable Residents/Government Purchase Scheme He referred to the Objectors advising that circa 2011, all flats were sold under a shared equity scheme. He pointed out that there were no longer restrictions placed on premises in this scheme when purchased outright at 100%, which, he said, he had done. Bin Rota He referred to an informal agreement between the neighbours in respect of a bin rota and advised that he would be happy to join this or introduce alternative arrangements. He said that his preference would be to liaise with his neighbours and be part of the community. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mr Hamilton referred to a condition placed on the licence holder not to damage property. He said that Mr McMillan had not adhered to these rules as he had installed a key box without approaching the other residents before doing so. Mr McMillan advised that when he first purchased the property he had contacted Fyne Homes about installing a key box Page 6
Page 7
and they had indicated they were fine for him to proceed. He pointed out that there was already a key box underneath his own key box, which held keys for entry into the building by the factor. Ms Coyle sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he would include an instruction in the guest handbook that access to the lift and upper floors was not permitted. Mrs Ross referred to there being several entrances into the building and if these were used by guests they would be passing the windows and undermining the privacy of residents living on the ground floor. She asked what Mr McMillan could do to prevent this from happening. Mr McMillan advised that it is intimated in the guest hand book that the door closest to his flat was the only entrance and exit from the building. He said that he planned to produce a You Tube video giving directions from the ferry directly into the apartment. Mrs Ross referred to a lot of work being done on the flat and asked Mr McMillan if he could clean up the area outside his flat as a lot of debris and dust had been left. Mr McMillan agreed he would ensure this was dealt with. He said he wanted to be part of the community and advised that if there was anything else he could do out with his apartment in terms of the rest of the building he would be happy to contribute his fair share. OBJECTORS Bill Ball Mr Ball advised that this building was the old Court House and was different to tenements and purpose built flats. It was arranged on three sides of the building and looked over a shared courtyard, with all the flats accessible by key fob. He said it was an open environment, different from a close with stairs. He said that access was not available to the general public, and that it was a quiet, open, shared space, with flowering shrubs and large pots grown and tended by residents. There was also a shared drying area and a rota organised for bins. He advised that if they had any dealings with the factor they would hold meetings to make decisions. He said that for the first 12 years the flats were not available to the wider public. Applicants were means tested. Individual flats have come on the open market since the passing of owners. He advised that the recent purchase of Flat 1 by Mr McMillan had challenged the established dynamic of the Court House. His intention of not using it as a home, and to develop it as an Airbnb, meant there was a real shift in the whole fabric of the Court House. He said that to him, this was a change of use from a private dwelling house to a business operated from a mainland address. The temporary nature of Airbnb’s was different from residents that lived in a property. He advised that the resident at flat No 2 would be most affected by guests arriving and departing as this flat shared the entrance passageway with flat No 1. He pointed out that Mr McMillan would not be affected as he lived in Glasgow. He said that the flat had been redeveloped with a sure sense that the license was being taken for granted. He said the development had been imposed on the Court House residents and that as a resident, he felt taken advantage of. He advised that when he went through the purchasing process with Fyne Homes it was made clear to him that the Page 7
Page 8
flats could not become Airbnbs. He said this offered him security and that he welcomed that. He said this process was applied to all residents both present and future. He advised that this overall security had now gone and that this application opened the doors to other uses in the Court House which, he said, would change the environment there. He said it would challenge the sense of community and shared ownership that had been enjoyed for years. Iain Hamilton Mr Hamilton said that his main objection was that the proposal did not suit this unique property. Most of the owners bought their properties as the Court House was a secure place to stay with key fob and this was confirmed in the title deeds which stated that the flats could only be used as a private dwelling house and may not be used in any ancillary capacity for any trade, business or profession. He said Mr McMillan was getting round this by advising that he was not taking any cash on the premises. He referred to Mr McMillan advising that he was a property developer and said that this was his business model. He referred to Mr McMillan advising that he would only allow lets of 3 days or more. He pointed out that the entrance to his flat was 1.5 metres from the entrance to flat No 1. He commented that as an Airbnb up to 5 people at a time could be entering and existing the property at the same time, which would result in noise. He said this noise would be amplified as the close at this point was an echo chamber, and that this noise would not be picked up by a noise sensor in the flat. He said that his flat would be impacted more than any other. He advised that he was upset that when the Licensing Officer came to visit the flat and look around it, they did not visit the Objectors and discuss their problems. Frances Coyle Ms Coyle referred to Mr McMillan’s comments about concerns people would have with new neighbours, and she pointed out that they would have this anxiety every 3 days. She said that she felt the security of the building had been compromised. She advised that they did not have a service button and that the door to the building was never open to the public and was only opened by residents allowing access. She added that they did not want people in their courtyard with barbeques. She said this would really destroy their way of life. She commented that this was a good community working together and that it would be spoiled. She said that she understood this was a business and that Mr McMillan had to make money, but she questioned what this would cost to others in the other flats. She also commented on the Licensing Officer not visiting the other flats to see the different layouts or speak to anyone. She advised that the main thing was the security aspect and concern that this would spoil their way of life. Margaret Ross Mrs Ross advised that no one had been to view the building within the courtyard. She said this was not a typical tenement building and that when they entered from the street, using a key fob and then closed the door, they were psychologically shutting themselves off from the outside world even before opening the door to their own flat. She said there was a feeling of safety and security, which was a good feeling to have in these times when not much responsibility and respect was shown. Page 8
Page 9
She said they were living in different times and that if this licence was granted many strangers would be coming and going, taking away that safety net from everyone living there. She referred to the intercom system set up in each flat for any visitors to the property. She said this was a security system. She referred to Mr McMillan’s comments about the bin rota and advised that was not one of their main concerns and was something that could be easily resolved. She referred to Mr McMillan advising that he would only accept 3 night stays as a minimum and that anything less would be subject to request and approval by Mr McMillan, she said this was a contradiction. She referred to Mr McMillan advising that a minimum of 3 night stays was to avoid renters coming at the weekends to “hit the pubs”. She commented that this was presumptuous of Mr McMillan and advised that she was not interested as to why any renters would be coming to the island. She also referred to the entrance into the building leading to other entrances on the ground floor, and to the bedroom windows facing onto the courtyard. She advised that they all felt their sense of community was being taken away and that this has been a secure building and a safe place, since the flats first became available. She also advised that several owners within the Court building did not have a smart phone, never mind access to the internet. She said that they felt naïve and powerless to raise their objections. She said that those Objectors in attendance today were speaking on behalf of those other residents. She said that for her, if the Committee granted this licence they would be removing the privacy and security net from everyone within this complex. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr McMillan had no questions but responded to a number comments made by the Objectors. He referred to the restrictions that were put in place on each property back in 2011 and advised that these were not in place now if a property was purchased outright. He referred to comments made about the noise detection system only detecting noise within the property, and advised that the system allowed for an extension to the sensor which he could extend to the outside of his property. He also referred to his reasons for a minimum 3 night stay. He referred to having a good track record with his other 2 apartments on the island and said that he had never had any issues in the past with any renters. He referred to getting a lot of hill walkers and that he also had a contract with the NHS and received requests from the surgery to house a doctor for one or 2 nights. He said that was why he could potentially let a property for less than 3 nights, depending on the reason why. Mrs Ross sought clarification from Mr McMillan on why he had initially displayed the notice about applying for a licence, too high up for anyone to see. Mr McMillan explained that he had not wanted to put it on his front door as it would not have been seen by the general public. He said that by placing it in his window he thought it would have stood out more. He confirmed that once he was contacted by the Council to move the notice he had done so and that he had also duplicated it and placed it where instructed and also placed a copy on his front door. He said that the notices were in place for 42 days. Page 9
Page 10
MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Licensing Standards Officer that it would not be relevant for the Committee to base their decision on the terms of the title deeds and that this was a private matter for individual parties to resolve themselves. Councillor Green, referred to the title deeds not being a relevant matter for the licensing authority and asked the Objectors if they had considered taking legal action in terms of enforcing what was contained within the title deeds. Mr Ball said he wished he could take this matter to a court of law to get a ruling on it. He said he knew that Mr McMillan had approached a solicitor and got their opinion. He said he would like to be able to take this to a court of law to get it cleared up but none of the residents had the funds to follow it up. Ms Coyle said that this was a clear breach of the title deeds but the problem was the cost to go down the legal route at this time. She said that if they had the resources they would have gone down the legal route. Mr Hamilton commented that this legislation was brought in to protect premises like theirs. He said the Committee were putting them in a difficult position due to the costs. He said that if the Committee gave a licence to someone that could be breaking the law. He said that he thought the licensing authority should protect them by not giving the licence. Councillor Brown referred to the Committee not being able to take the title deeds into consideration, even though they said the property could not be rented out, and she sought clarification from the Council’s Solicitor on how the Committee could grant this licence. Mr Walker confirmed that the Committee should not be taking the title deeds into consideration as it was not a relevant matter. He said that the licensing authority could not consider the title deeds as these fall out with the remit of the licensing authority. Councillor Brown asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Committee should be looking at a planning application for a change of use from a private dwelling to a short-term let. Mr Walker advised that was an issue for the planning department and fell out with the scope of the licensing authority. Councillor Brown asked Mr McMillan if there was someone on the island that could be contacted to deal with any issues if he was not around. Mr McMillan explained that he was on the island more often than not. He said he was there a minimum of 50% of the time and that the only reason he was not there 100% of the time was because he had 2 young children and he was not with their mum anymore. He said he had the children 50% of the time. He said that when he was not on the island he had extended family that he stayed with on the island and also family around the corner from the property. He advised that he also had a list of external contractors that could deal with any property issues which arose. He said that as a landlord he was very responsive to issues. Councillor Brown asked if there was someone on the island that could deal with an issue such as noise quickly. Mr McMillan said he would treat any guest the same way as he would treat a neighbour. He referred to the alert system he had in place and advised that he would contact the guests direct and ask them to reduce any noise and point out they were not adhering to the conditions of let that they had accepted. He said that if there was still an issue he would contact the Police about any noise disturbance. He said that he Page 10
Page 11
had a good track record of dealing with any issues as they arose. He said he hoped the preventative measures he would put in place would help. He said that he would be happy to provide the neighbours with an alternative contact number of a family member on the island. Councillor Armour asked the Objectors if any of them had taken legal advice on what was stated in the title deeds. Mrs Ross said she never thought she would require legal advice on the title deeds at this stage in life. She said that they relied on them to be true. She confirmed that she had not sought any legal advice. Mr Ball advised that he had a conversation with a solicitor on the island that he had used to purchase his flat about this issue and she had not been able to offer a definitive response. He said that he had asked what the next stage was for them and she had indicated that they would need to appoint a solicitor who understood issues regarding deeds and property and go to court to present that. He said that at the moment it felt too big a step to take. Mr Hamilton commented that the title deeds were written up before Airbnbs existed. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he acknowledged the existence of the title needs. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he acknowledged that it stated in the title deeds that “any flat is to be used as a private dwelling house, and may not be used even in an ancillary capacity, for any trade, business or profession” and that it also stated that “the flat must not be subdivided or occupied by more than one family at a time”. In terms of the flat only being occupied by one family at a time, Councillor Green asked Mr McMillan if he would be complying with that. Mr McMillan advised that this was not stated in the guest handbook at the moment. He said that over the last 2 or 3 years, since becoming a landlord, he had not known of 2 families staying at any of his properties at the same time. He said he would be happy to include that as a condition for anyone looking to rent. Mr McMillan further advised that prior to purchasing the flat he had raised the title deeds issue, and sought advice from, a solicitor and also raised the issue with Bute Property, who were the Agent selling the property. He said that the advice given was there would be no issue with doing this because it was the opinion of the solicitor that as he was not taking physical cash or using a cash machine on the premises, this would be no different to a full time let where payment would go to an Agency, the Agency would take a fee, and then pass the rest on to him. On the basis of that advice, he said he decided to proceed with the purchase. Councillor Blair said he was perturbed about the amount of focus being placed on the title deeds. He said it was his understanding this was a civil issue between the residents. Mr Walker confirmed that any issue with title deeds was a private civil matter and not a material consideration for granting or not granting a licence. Page 11
Page 12
Councillor Blair referred to having a good experience of having an Airbnb next door to his own home and that he had met a range of people from all parts of the world. He asked the Objectors if they could see any advantage on meeting visitors from around the world. Mr Hamilton said their objection was not about who would come from abroad and want to chat to them. He said their concern was about the security of the Court House. He said he was concerned about noise late at night and about who could be wondering about late at night. He said he’d had this security for years and that this would be eroded. He referred to the key boxes on the front of the building and pointed out that this was a listed building. He suggested that these key boxes could be a breach of the listed status. Councillor Armour referred to concerns raised about noise and the mitigation measures proposed to be put in place by the Applicant. He suggested that with these mitigation measures in place this could lead to less of an issue than if someone had brought the property to live in. He commented that someone could buy the property to live in it, be unsociable and create noise. He asked the Objectors if they felt the noise issue would only happen with an Airbnb rather than someone who bought and lived in the property. Mr Hamilton advised that they would be able to get to know someone who bought and lived in the property. He said the problem was they would be getting someone different every 3 days and they would not know who was coming and where from. He said the main problem was the impact on the security that they currently had within the Court House. Mr Ball said that if an owner lived in the property on a long-term basis they would build a relationship with them, as that was the way of life here. He said you automatically had an awareness of other people’s needs when living like this. He said he was not sure this was a viable argument. He said he would feel at risk of approaching someone from the Airbnb if they, for example, were smoking in the courtyard. Councillor Philand referred to what the Objectors had said about not knowing who would be coming and going and when, and commented that Mr McMillan would know and that each of his guests would be vetted in advance. He asked the Objectors if they could think of anything else that Mr McMillan could do to alleviate their anxiety. Mr Ball said he did not think so. He commented that the bottom line was having an Airbnb in a community of 24 flats. He said he did not think anything could be done. Councillor Green asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Committee could decide that Mr McMillan was not a fit and proper person as he was seeking to circumvent any title deeds that might be in place. Mr Walker confirmed that he would advise against using that argument as the title needs were out with the scope of the licensing authority and there were no relevant planning objections either. Councillor Wallace asked Mr McMillan if he recognised that noise echoed around the courtyard and that noise that would normally be acceptable would be amplified in that setting. Mr McMillan said yes, given the fact that it was on open area. He advised that he did not think it would echo throughout the building given the distance there was. He added that he felt that he has put all relevant measures in place to mitigate against any risks. Councillor Blair asked Mr McMillan if he perceived himself to be a fit and proper person. He also asked if the courtyard was a no smoking zone for residents and visitors. Mr McMillan advised that in terms of the courtyard he did not know if it was legally a no Page 12
Page 13
smoking zone. He said it was his personal opinion that this should be a no smoking area and that he would be advising visitors not to smoke, even in the outside area. Mr McMillan said he was a fit and proper person and that he had experience as a landlord. He said this was his livelihood and that he provided for his 2 children on that basis. He said he took everything very seriously and commented that the licensing scheme was the best thing that had come in as it separated the amateur landlords from the professional landlords who want to uphold the code of conduct and do the best for guests and residents. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from Mr McMillan that he hoped to have a great relationship with the neighbours going forward to ensure that they could all work together. He said that he had great relationships with the neighbours of his other 2 properties on the island. He said he understood that there were full time residents in building and said that he owned the property and wanted to maintain it to a high standard. Councillor Howard referred to the title deeds. She said it bothered her, as they seemed to shelter the residents. She asked the Council’s Solicitor if the Committee were to give the go ahead for this and then the residents went to court and got clarification that their interpretation of the title deeds was correct, would the Committee be guilty of doing something illegal. Mr Walker confirmed this would not be the case as external advice has been received on this and the licensing authority should not take any consideration into the title deeds. Councillor Blair asked the Applicant what his definition of a family was. He commented that in general terms you could have a family visiting your accommodation that consisted of a mother, a father, a grandparent and children or an uncle. He asked the Applicant if he would consider that to be a family group and if he would consider 2 couples as friends as 2 families in terms of the title deeds. Mr McMilllan said that if you went by the title deeds it would be one family at a time. He said he took on board what Councillor Blair said about different family groups and said he personally considered blood relatives as family. He said the accommodation was set up with 2 double beds. He advised that he had not opted for 2 single beds as that would have allowed 3 different parties to stay. He explained that he was applying for a license to accommodate upto 5, 2 people for each of the double beds and a travel cot. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Ball advised that he had nothing further to add and that all the issues that had been raised were quite clear. Mr Hamilton referred to issues with technology and some of the residents not having access to technology and the internet. He said that there would have been more objections to this application but due to how it was processed some people of an older age were excluded to some degree. Ms Coyle confirmed she had nothing further to say. Mrs Ross also confirmed that everything had been covered. Page 13
Page 14
Applicant Mr McMillan advised that most of the relevant points had been covered. He said that he was an experienced landlord and that he would carry out everything with integrity, driven by his own set of values and that he tried to be respectful of everyone around him. He referred to the title deeds and said he appreciated what Mr Walker had said about them not being relevant. He advised that to him they were relevant and that was why he sought legal advice before purchasing the property and he was advised they were not an issue. He referred to Mr Ball saying he would not know who was coming and going and advised that he would be happy to share with residents dates when any guests were arriving or leaving in the same way as he did with other people in the community. He said that may give them peace of mind to know when to expect guests. Mr McMillan confirmed that he would uphold all the conditions on the licence at all times. When asked, all the parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Green said this application made him feel uncomfortable. He said he took on board the advice received from Officers and advised that to some extent that reflected national legislation. He said he felt he had to say when something did not feel right and this did not. He advised that if he voted for the application to be granted it would not be because it was the right thing to do, it would be because of the restrictions placed on the Committee. Councillor Wallace advised that he had no concerns with Mr McMillan as an Applicant in terms of the business he was doing elsewhere. He said that he had concerns about noise levels and that he knew that noise was amplified in the courtyard and passageways. He said he also took on board what the Objectors had said about security. Councillor Brown said she also felt uncomfortable. She acknowledged that the title deeds could not be taken into consideration and said that was what was making her uncomfortable. She said she had no issues with Mr McMillan and felt sure he had done all he could to mitigate against any noise issues. She said he was doing everything that was asked of him and he was showing a willingness to speak to people and put things in place. She said she was reassured that if any issues occurred with people that were renting they would be dealt with quickly and efficiently by Mr McMillan or someone else on the island. She said she did not think you could ask much more from a landlord. She said that she felt Mr McMillan had taken on board all the issues the Objectors have raised and that he had done his best to put measures in place to address these. Councillor Armour was of a similar view to Councillor Brown. He referred to the title deeds and said the Committee had been through this before. He commented that a couple of years ago before this licensing scheme was in place, and if Mr McMillan had gotten the same advice about the title deeds, this short-term let would just have gone ahead. He said that he agreed with Mr McMillan that the licensing scheme was a good thing. He advised that this would weed out unscrupulous landlords. He said he had sympathy for the residents but the Committee had to act on what was in front of them and the legal advice given was that the title deeds could not be taken into consideration. He advised that he thought Mr McMillan had done a lot to try and mitigate issues that may arise and that he had done everything possible. He confirmed that he would support Mr McMillan’s application but that he fully appreciated the concerns the residents had. Page 14
Page 15
Councillor Blair agreed with the comments made regarding some of the concerns and said he was sure all of them would be mitigated by the steps put in place by Mr McMillan. He said he understood the concerns and commented that he’d had a good experience of an Airbnb next door to his own home but that may not have been the case. He advised that going forward he hoped that the residents would have good dialogue with the Applicant to iron out any problems. He said he would be happy to accept the recommendations in the report and approve the application. Councillor Philand said he echoed what had been said about the title deeds in respect of concerns that if something was approved it could be legally challenged. He advised that Mr McMillan had given him as much reassurance as possible. He said he understood the concerns of the residents. He referred to the references Mr McMillan had from his other properties and said that they had demonstrated that he was responsible as the other businesses seemed to be well managed and he thought that bowed well. Councillor Green said he thought that Mr McMillan had done everything he could but he wished that he had not bought a property which had been built to address concerns of housing need and which would now be used as a short-term let. He said he agreed that Mr McMillan had done everything he could to alleviate concerns. Councillor Brown said there were no material considerations that would allow the Committee to refuse this. She said she was not comfortable about the issue with the title deeds but this was not something the Committee could consider. She said she fully believed that Mr McMillan had shown due diligence in seeking advice from his own solicitor. She said she did feel he was a fit and proper person and so would agree with the recommendations in the report. Motion To agree to grant a short-term let licence to Mr McMillan subject to the additional conditions detailed in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property. Moved by Councillor Jan Brown, seconded by Councillor John Armour. Amendment To continue consideration of this application to a future meeting to allow Members time to prepare a competent Motion to refuse the application. Moved by Councillor Peter Wallace, seconded by Councillor Graham Hardie. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Green Councillor Blair Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Brown Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Forrest Councillor Hardie Councillor Howard Councillor Wallace Councillor Philand Page 15
Page 16
The Motion was carried by 6 votes to 5 and the Committee resolved accordingly. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Mr McMillan subject to the additional conditions detailed in the report in respect of anti-social behaviour, privacy and security, littering and waste disposal, and damage to property. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted) Page 16
Page 17
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on MONDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Stuart McLean, Committee Manager David Walker, Solicitor 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy and Liz McCabe. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (CAPTAIN FARQUHARSONS TORLOISK TRUST, KILBRENNAN FARM, ULVA FERRY, ISLE OF MULL) The Committee Manager advised that this hearing was no longer required as the objection submitted by the Council’s Roads Department had been withdrawn and therefore the application could now be dealt with under delegated powers. DECISION The Committee noted that this hearing was no longer required and that the application would be dealt with under delegated powers. (Reference: Report by Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager, submitted) Page 17 Agenda Item 3c
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, 18 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Arlene Knox, Senior Planning Officer Mark Lodge, Senior Planning and Strategies Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE An apology for absence was received from Councillor Andrew Kain. 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 November 2024 was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 November 2024 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 November 2024 at 2.30 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 November 2024 at 3.30 pm was approved as a correct record. * 4. REVISION OF ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL'S SHORT-TERM LET LICENSING POLICY Consideration was given to a report proposing amendments to the Council’s Short-Term Let Licensing Policy to reflect legislative changes introduced by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1992 (Licensing of Short-term Lets) Order 2024, experience and discussions with other local authorities, Scottish Government, the Short-Term Let Licensing Team, customers and the Association of Scottish Self Caterers (ASSC). Page 19 Agenda Item 3d
Page 20
Decision The Committee: 1. considered this report and the revised Short-Term Let Licensing Policy detailed in Appendix 1; and 2. recommended to Council approval of the revised Short-Term Let Licensing Policy. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Regulatory Services and Environmental Health dated 2 December 2024, submitted) 5. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI FARE SCALE REVIEW 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. The new fare structure requires to come into force by 22 April 2025. The fares were last reviewed by Members on 21 June 2023 and took effect on 22 October 2023. Consideration was given to a report advising the Committee they were now required to carry out a further review of taxi fares and other charges. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. To propose an increase of 10% on tariff 1, tariff 2 and tariff 3 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. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 18 December 2024, submitted) Councillor Paul Kennedy declared a financial interest prior to debating the foregoing item as he was a taxi driver and he left the meeting at this point. Councillor Audrey Forrest joined the meeting during presentation of the foregoing item. Councillor Paul Kennedy returned to the meeting at the conclusion of this item. Page 20
Page 21
6. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR ERECTION OF 13 TURBINES WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 180M, AND ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS): LAND APPROXIMATELY 4.7 KM NORTH OF INVERARAY (REF: 24/00053/S36) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report and to supplementary report number 1. At the PPSL Committee on 20 November 2024 it was agreed to continue to consideration of this proposal to allow for an outstanding issue regarding Noise to be dealt with and the Energy Consents Unit agreed an extension to 19 December 2024 for submission of a consultation response by the Council. Consideration was given to a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit and Deployment Unit consultation on the Section 36 Application for the erection of 13 turbines with a maximum height of 180m and ancillary infrastructure including a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at land approximately 4.7 km north of Inveraray. This report reviews the policy considerations which are applicable to this proposal and the planning merits of the development, the views of bodies consulted by the Scottish Government along with other consultations undertaken by the Council, and third party opinion expressed to the Scottish Government. It was recommended that the ECU be notified that Argyll and Bute Council does not object to the proposed development and to recommend the ECU to consider mitigation and conditions as detailed in supplementary report number 1. Decision The Committee agreed that the ECU be notified accordingly that: 1. Argyll & Bute Council does not object on landscape and visual grounds, however, recommends the following advice is considered by the Energy Consents Unit: Mitigation - Consideration should be given to the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect: • There is scope to reduce effects on views from Glen Aray and from Dun na Cuaiche by removing or substantially reducing the heights of Turbines 11 and 13. This measure would also reduce intrusion from Loch Fyne, particularly in the Strachur area and would negate adverse impacts (particularly if woodland were to be removed in future) close to Inveraray at Viewpoint 4. It is additionally recommended that off-site planting should be undertaken to extend screening along the A819 and mitigate effects on views. • The applicant should also consider more ambitious landscape and biodiversity mitigation and enhancement proposals in line with the aims of NPF4 Policy 3. The proposed wind farm should form a catalyst to effect quicker and more far-reaching improvement to uniform and, in places, poorly designed forestry. The proposed Wind Farm Restocking Plan does not hugely differ from the baseline Restocking Plan (see Figures 14.4 and 14.7) and more should be done to improve the angular northern and south-eastern margins of productive forest. The planting of more Page 21
Page 22
extensive native woodlands should form part of the Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) and Wind Farm Forest Plan. Biodiversity and landscape enhancement measures should not be confined to the site (which is limited by its use as a productive forest) but should extend outside the site with the aim of better integrating the forest with its surroundings and improving connectivity for wildlife. • The effects of visible aviation lighting are concerning particularly given the considerable number of applications in Argyll & Bute where turbine lighting is proposed. While it is accepted that the day-time effects of the proposal would be of greater significance and would be likely to affect more people, consideration should be given to future mitigation of the effects of lighting on the dark skies of Argyll. It is therefore also strongly recommended that an Aircraft Detection Lighting System should be installed at the earliest opportunity as this would reduce the duration and impact of night-time lighting. 2. Argyll & Bute Council recommends that the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer are considered by the ECU: • Floatation tracks must be used on areas of deeper peat to avoid disturbance. • While the impact to bats is unlikely to be significant, it would be advisable to monitor any fatalities that may occur from collision as they are found to forage within the wind turbine areas. • the applicant should include a clear plan of proposed fence siting, the type of marking to be used, the distance from known lek sites, and programme of monitoring fence for any potential black grouse carcasses. 3. Argyll & Bute Council recommends that all conditions recommended by consultees should be included in any Consent. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 6 November 2024 and Supplementary Report Number 1 dated 3 December 2024, submitted) Councillor Daniel Hampsey left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 7. REGISTRATION OF LUING LOCAL PLACE PLAN Local Place Plans (LPPs) were introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 with the publication of the Town and Country Planning (Local Place Plans) (Scotland) Regulations 2021 and Planning Circular 1/2022. A report advising Members of the validation and registration of the Luing Local Place Plan was considered. Decision The Committee agreed: 1. to note the registration of the Luing LPP which has been made available on the website as well as a hard copy at the Manse Brae Office; and Page 22
Page 23
2. that future Local Place Plans would be brought to PPSL for noting and once registered would be placed on the Council’s website. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 17 October 2024, submitted) 8. UK GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION: ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE CONSENTING IN SCOTLAND A report providing a summary of the proposals set out within the UK Government consultation “Electricity Infrastructure Consenting in Scotland” was considered along with a response approved by the Council’s Executive Leadership Team, which was submitted prior to the consultation closing date of 29 November 2024. A further response including comments/amendments from the PPSL could be submitted if necessary. Decision The Committee considered and approved the draft consultation response attached to this report as Appendix 1. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 25 November 2024, submitted) Councillor Daniel Hampsey returned to the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. Page 23
Page 24
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 25
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor David Brown, Applicant Sergeant Ben Rusden, Police Scotland 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Andrew Kain and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF A TAXI DRIVER LICENCE (D BROWN, DUNOON) 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 Mr Brown joined the meeting by telephone. Police Scotland also opted to proceed by audio call and Sergeant Ben Rusden joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair advised that this application had previously been before the PPSL Committee on 18 September 2024 where it was agreed to continue consideration of the application and hold a fresh hearing in 3 months time to allow the Applicant to reflect on concerns raised by the Committee at that meeting. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr Brown advised that he would be lost without his licence as it was his reason to get up in the morning, to meet people, support his regular customers, and make some extra money. He said he was sorry for what had happened and that he accepted full responsibility for his actions. Page 25 Agenda Item 3e
Page 26
QUESTIONS FROM POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant Rusden confirmed that he had no questions. POLICE SCOTLAND Sergeant Rusden referred to a letter dated 17 June 2024 from the Divisional Commander, which advised that the Applicant had been convicted of a road traffic offence and received a fixed penalty and 3 penalty points as a result of an incident which had taken place on 3 May 2024. He advised that Mr Brown had reported this incident to the Police when it happened. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr Brown confirmed that he had no questions. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Sergeant Rusden that there were no further incidents drawn to the attention of the Police since this application was before the Committee in September. Councillor Green asked Mr Brown if he’d had time to reflect on his driving over the last 3 months. Mr Brown said that there had been no issues. Councillor Blair asked Mr Brown if he’d had the opportunity of undertaking a driving assessment as was suggested at the previous meeting. Mr Brown advised that he had 2 or 3 friends that were advanced driving instructors and he had asked if they would sit with him. He said they had advised that this was not necessary as he had been driving for years. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Mr Brown that he was advised that an assessment of his driving was not necessary. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mr Brown that he had nothing further to say about his driving. He said that he took full responsibility for what had happened and that he was very sorry for that. SUMMING UP Police Scotland Sergeant Rusden advised that Mr Brown had received the lowest level of penalty for this type of incident as the gentleman involved had not received a significant injury. He confirmed that Mr Brown had reported the incident at the time and that it was also reported by a member of the public and dash cam footage was obtained. Applicant Mr Brown said that he accepted full responsibility for what had happened and that he was sorry. He advised that he would be lost without his licence. When asked, both parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. Page 26
Page 27
DEBATE Councillor Hardie referred to Sergeant Rusden advising that the Applicant had received the lowest penalty possible and advised that he felt that he had shown genuine remorse. He noted that the Applicant had received confirmation from advanced driving instructors that there was no need to undergo a driving assessment and he advised that he could see no reason not to accept the renewal of the licence. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that the Committee could grant the licence for a period less than 3 years. Councillor Blair sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that the Committee could grant the licence for a shorter period than the maximum. Councillor Blair referred to the previous hearing when the Committee heard that this was the second time the Applicant had been involved in an incident with a pedestrian. He said he was disappointed that he had not taken the opportunity since the last meeting to undertake some sort of driving assessment. He said he was not sure if Mr Brown understood the seriousness of the situation. He advised that he understood he had to make a living, and, having received confirmation that the Committee could grant the licence for a period less than 3 years, he suggested granting the licence for one year as he felt this would put his mind at rest. Councillor Irvine commented that he was not at the previous hearing. He said that Councillor Blair made some valid points, but having now heard that there had been a previous incident, he had serious concerns about protection of the public. He advised that while he appreciated Mr Brown’s passion for the role, he shared Councillor Blair’s concerns that some sort of driving assessment with a professional body had not been undertaken since the last hearing. He said he would have serious reservations about even a one year renewal. Councillor Howard said that she had hoped that the delay in determining this application would have given the Applicant the time to think about what had happened. She advised that she was also disappointed that a driving assessment had not been undertaken. She noted that he had received a minimum penalty for the last offence and as it was a while ago, said she would be minded to grant the licence for one year, provided that, if anything further was to happen, it would be reported to the Committee before the year was up. Councillor Green said it was his own view that there would be not much difference between granting the licence for one year or 3 years as if another incident were to occur, Police Scotland could report that to the licensing authority, which would trigger a further hearing. To grant for one year would mean the Applicant having to reapply in a years time and, potentially, if the offence was still on the Police system, the Police may submit another representation which would trigger another hearing. He advised that for him, it came back to the standards that Members would expect from a taxi driver, particularly while on duty, and the impression the public would have of the licensing authority whether the licence was granted or not. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that this hearing was for consideration of an application for renewal of a taxi driver licence, which had been objected to, and was not as a result of the incident which had occurred. Page 27
Page 28
Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that when the incident occurred this was not reported to the licensing authority. Councillor Howard advised that she thought if the licence was granted for one year this would be at the back of Mr Brown’s mind and he would be more mindful and conscious of the way he was driving. She said she thought that would be more effective that granting the licence for 3 years. Councillor Irvine advised that he was concerned that Police Scotland had not reported the second incident to the licensing authority. He said he was not sure if this was because of the severity of the incident or because it was not flagged up on the system. He advised that he had concerns about protecting the public and waiting until something more serious occurred. He said he would not want to hear about a serious incident or fatality as a result of the Committee not applying some sort of measure to protect the public. He advised that he was not minded to support renewal of the licence. Motion To agree to grant the renewal of Mr Brown’s Taxi Driver Licence for one year. Moved by Councillor Graham Hardie, seconded by Councillor Fiona Howard. Amendment To agree to refuse the renewal of Mr Brown’s Taxi Driver Licence on the grounds of public safety. Moved by Councillor Mark Irvine, seconded by Councillor Kieron Green. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Armour Councillor Blair Councillor A Hampsey Councillor Green Councillor D Hampsey Councillor Irvine Councillor Hardie Councillor Howard Councillor Philand Councillor Wallace The Motion was carried by 7 votes to 3 and the Committee resolved accordingly. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant the renewal of Mr Brown’s Taxi Driver Licence for a period of one year and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 28
Page 29
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Steve McIntyre-Stewart, Objector Samantha Border, Interested Party Allan McCandlish, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Jan Brown, Audrey Forrest, Andrew Kain and Paul Kennedy. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Fiona Howard declared a non-financial interest in both applications as she was a neighbour of the Applicant and new them 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 Steve McIntyre-Stewart, Objector, opted to proceed audio call and joined the meeting by telephone along with Samantha Border. Allan McCandlish, Objector, opted to proceed by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. There were 2 Private Hire Licence Applications before the Committee for consideration and before proceeding further the Chair invited the Legal Manager to provide an update to the Committee. The Legal Manager advised that the Applicant had requested a continuation of both these applications to a future meeting to allow him the opportunity to seek legal advice. Page 29 Agenda Item 3f
Page 30
(a) Tartan Wolf Group, Cove, Helensburgh (Nissan Leaf) DECISION The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) (b) Tartan Wolf Group, Cove, Helensburgh (Skoda Superb) DECISION The Committee agreed to continue consideration of this application to a future meeting. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 30
Page 31
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 24/01249/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Lorne Thomson Proposal: Change of use of land to vehicle parking/storage, including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part retrospective) Site Address: Land West Of BT Telephone Exchange, Garelochhead ____________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 (A) INTRODUCTION This application is to be presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 22nd January 2025. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring the planning file up to date to include details of the late supporting representations submitted. ______________________________________________________________________ (B) REPRESENTATIONS Late Representations Following the completion of the Officer’s Report on 01.11.2024 a further 22 representations were lodged in support of the application: 1. Caroline Colquhoun, 4 West Daladhill Lane, Garelochhed, Helensburgh, G84 0BE, Received 18.11.2024 2. Cllr Maurice Corry, Received 13.11.2024 3. Iain Exley, 8 Malcolm Place, Helensburgh, G84 GHP, Received 15.11.2024 4. Liam Flanagan, 11 Upland Wynd, Garelochhead, G84 0BL, Received 13.11.2024 5. Denis Foster, Flat 3, Dalandhill East, Dalandhill Lane, Garelcohhead, G84 0BE, Received 11.11.2024 6. Sarah Gordon, Uisken, Feorlin Way, Garelochhead, G84 0DF, Received 11.11.2024 7. Robert Griffiths, Rannochbrae, Station Road, Garelochhead, G84 0BD, Received 18.11.2024 8. Justin Kimmett, Duntorquil, Portincaple, Helensburgh, G84 0CU, Received 15.11.2024 9. Gemma Kimmett, Duntorquil, Portincaple, Helensburgh, G84 0CU, Received 15.11.2024 10. William Mitchell, Willow Barn, Glen Fruin, Helensburgh, G84 8YT, Received 18.11.2024 Page 31 Agenda Item 4
Page 32
11. Katie Morley, 214 West Princess Street, G84 8HA, Received 13.11.2024 12. Jason Pocock, Camsail Cottage, Rosneath, Helensburgh, G84 0QR, Received 13.11.2024 13. Julieann Powell, 14 Collins Road, Helensburgh, G84 7UA, Received 11.11.2024 14. Anthony Robson, 10 Townhead Road, Helensburgh, G84 7LX, Received 11.11.2024 15. Alice Samara, 1 /2 Stroul Lodge, Clynder, G84 0QA, Received 15.11.2024 16. Karen Shaw, 12 Tomamhoid, Rosneath, Helensurgh, G84 0RE, Received 15.11.2024 17. Susan Slade, Duntorquil, Feuins Road, Portincaple, Helensburgh G84 0EU, Received 18.11.2024 18. Kevin Small, 51 Malcolm Place, Helensburgh, G84 9HN, Received 13.11.2024 19. Kayla Smith, 214 West Princess Street, Helensburgh, GB4 8HA, Received 13.11.2024 20. Lewis Syme, Willow Bank, Rowmore Estate, Garelochhead, G84 0EH, Received 15.11.2024 21. Unknown, Mayfield, Old School Road, Garelochhead, Helensburgh G84 0AT, Received 13.11.2024 22. D West, 6 Strathfillan Terrace, Crianlarich, FK20 8QW, Received 12.11.2024 The matters raised in the further representations are summarised below: • The proposal will help alleviate local parking issues • The proposal will improve the condition of the site which is an eyesore • The proposed planting will help screen the site form the public road The expressions of support do not raise any new matters that have not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling before Members. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report which does not introduce any new information that has not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling. The recommendation of the Planning Authority remains that planning permission be Refused in line with the reasons appended to the original Report of Handling. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 09.01.2025 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 09.01.2025 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 32
Page 33
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 24/01249/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Lorne Thomson Proposal: Change of Use of Land to vehicle parking/storage, including laying of hardcore, erection of boundary wall and formation of access (part-retrospective). Site Address: Land West Of BT Telephone Exchange, Garelochhead, Argyll & Bute DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Change of use of land to form vehicle parking • Creation of access • Erection of boundary wall • Laying of hardcore (ii) Other specified operations • Landscaping (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: ABC Local Biodiversity Officer Date Consulted: 02.09.2024 Response Received: 10.10.2024 • The site extends to 0.19ha of historic woodland (now hard surface), with McCauley Burn to the south and east. The site had suitable habitat present for European Protected Species (EPS) and Protected Species (PS). Page 33
Page 34
Classification: OFFICIAL • The applicant states “It is acknowledged that in 2019 trees were removed from the application site. As noted above these trees were poor quality and self- seeded, and more importantly the site was being invaded by Japanese Knotweed.” • If the woodland had not been removed, I would have needed the following information from the applicant: a) European Protected Species, Protected Species (mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, and amphibians) surveys that would have need to be carried out prior to any works commencing. The trees may have had potential for roosting bats, red squirrels, pine marten, and breeding birds. b) Tree Survey to show the condition, species, age and conservation value of the trees within the site area. This would show if the trees were of poor quality and self-seeded. In accordance with NPF4 Policy 6, woodland removal is only supported under certain conditions. If would also be useful to see the discussions with Scottish Forestry of proposed tree felling advice to help clarify this. c) Method of Japanese Knotweed removal and its management plan. Invasive non-native species need set protocols to be followed for their clearance. Recommendations • Details of the location, species, and size of every tree/shrub they propose to plant. • A programme of tree/shrub planting to show timings, method of implementation, completion, and on-going maintenance and monitoring. • The agreed tree planting scheme should be completed within the first planting season (October – April). • A programme of the invasive non-native Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) clearance to show its location, and timings and method of removal. • Works to be carried out outwith the optimum time of spawning sea trout (October to January) to avoid impact on them. • The proposed site / landscape design shows improvements to the site as it stands now. There is still a lack of connectivity at the south part of the car park, and I would recommend the native woodland on either side be continued through to meet one another. • However, with regard the land as it was, prior to unauthorised tree feeling, the proposed site / landscape design does not follow NPF4 Policy 3 or Policy 6 guidance. ABC Development Policy Officer Date Consulted: 02.09.2024 Response Received: 11.10.2024 • The application site sits within an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA). The southern part of the OSPA was considered in the Examination stage of LDP2. The Reporter notes that “although not appearing to have significant informal recreational use, [it] nevertheless contributes significantly to the character and amenity of the village. The application site itself forms a small part of this. • Policy 81 of LDP2 sets out that “partial loss of such areas to development can unacceptably erode either their individual integrity and function or the integrity of our wider blue and green infrastructure”, and as such a robust justification is required. • In the assessment of this application careful consideration should be given to parts (a) and (e) of Policy 81. The application site is a minor part of the overall Page 34
Page 35
Classification: OFFICIAL OSPA however an assessment requires to be made in terms of whether the development would affect the integrity of the overall OSPA as well as the character and amenity value within the village. Whilst this part of the OSPA does not appear to provide a functional link through the wider OSPA due to the presence of a watercourse, prior to the recent removal of trees it contributed towards the integrity of the green infrastructure and associated amenity value. ABC Roads Authority Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 19.09.2024 No objection, subject to conditions regarding formation of access and drainage. Further clarification confirms that parking bays and turning/manoeuvring space is not required if site is to be used as private car storage (rather than publicly accessible car parking). All vehicles required to enter and exit site in forward gear. Ministry of Defence Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 27.09.2024 No objection SEPA Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 Response Received: 29.08.2024 Below threshold for comment, advised to refer to consultation standards Environmental Health Date Consulted: 29.08.2024 - No Response Flood Risk Consultants Date Consulted: 29.08.2024- No Response (D) HISTORY: Planning Enforcement 21/00049/ENOTH3 – Unauthorised Use of Land for the storage of vehicles [Open] Planning Application Adjacent site 20/01822/PPP - Site for the erection of dwellinghouse and public realm enhancements [Refused] – Application initially included this site within the red line boundary, but did not form part of the final submission. (E) PUBLICITY: Helensburgh Advertiser Date Published: 12.09.2024 Date of Expiry: 03.10.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 22 representations have been made in response to this application. 2 neutral representations and 20 representations in support of the application are made: Page 35
Page 36
Classification: OFFICIAL Neutral: 1. Nicholas Beevers, Buchanan Castle Golf Club, Buchanan Castle Estate, Drymen, G63 0HX 2. Sarah Borrows, Glenelg Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0AT Support 1. Emily Pullar, 4 Dalandhui Mews, Dalandhi Lane, Garelochhead, G84 0BE 2. Gordon Russell, Achnashie Cottage, Rosneath, G84 0QU 3. Mike Austin, Rosneath Helensburgh G84 0QR 4. Elizabeth Macintosh, 106E Sinclair Street, Helensburgh, G84 9QE 5. D Ross, 2 St Modans Howe, Garelochhead, G84 0DR 6. Amanda Kennedy, 8 Dunivard Place, G84 0AA 7. John Murrin, 105 Feorlon Way, Garelochhead G84 0EB 8. Stewart Dixon, 5 Greenfield Way, Garelochhead G84 0BN 9. Jamie Kjorstad, 1 Feorlinbreck, Garelochhead, G84 0DT 10. Gerard Quigley, 91 Feorlin Way, Garelochhead, G84 0DX 11. Claire Balneaves, 23 Redgauntlet Road, Helensburgh, G84 7TW 12. Steven Street, Tangaroa, Fairfield Gardens, Kilcreggan, G84 0HS 13. R Madden, 16 Almora Drive, Dumbarton, G82 1AE 14. Craig Wilson, 7 Machrie Drive, Helensburgh, G84 9EJ 15. Margaret Johnson, 14 Ferry Road, G84 16. Greig Dixon, 42 Linn Walk, Garelochhead, G84 0DS 17. Catherine Bennett, 2 Bruce Court, Succoth, Arrochar, G83 7BF 18. Mr &Mrs Cowan, The Haven East, Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0DR 19. Sandra Prout, 35 Old School Road, Garelochhead, G84 0AT 20. George Freeman, Garelochhead Residents Association (two letters of support submitted) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: Page 36
Page 37
Classification: OFFICIAL Neutral • To consider the value of the burn as a spawning burn for sea trout. The burn is highly productive for sea trout • An invasive plant management plan is needed to ensure knotweed on the site is managed Officer Comment: This is noted. In consultation with the Council’s Biodiversity Officer a number of species and habitat surveys would be required for development at this site and mitigation in relation to sea trout spawning season This is considered in the assessment below. • Reassurances are required that vehicles will not be washed here, that there is no storage of end of life vehicles or waste from the Applicant’s garage business. • The bank revetment done in 2020 was not initially done under CAR license and we do not know what material was pushed down behind the stone rep-rap which was installed Officer Comment: SEPA confirms that a CAR License was granted and there are no concerns for the work that was undertaken. A copy of the CAR License is also submitted with this application. The storage of end-of-life vehicles on site is not proposed as part of this application. Nonetheless, a planning condition could be applied to ensure environmental and residential amenity. • Any further surface laid on the area is fully permeable and does not increase the flood risk to several private properties downstream. • There can be considerable pressure on the Burn which can overspill its banks until the tide turns. Any increased run-off from the site might be problematic. Officer Comment: suitable materials and construction methods are also advised in the Applicant’s own flood survey report. Materials, drainage and water management could be secured by planning condition. • Can the Council amend the planning section so objections and letters of support be done via the website. Officer Comment: Applications are available for public viewing on the Council’s website, where representations can be made directly to the application. Support • The current land is vacant and derelict and an eyesore. The proposed design would be an improvement to the condition of the land. Officer Comment: The current condition of the land is the result of unauthorised development of a greenfield site by the Applicant. This application seeks to remedy the breach in planning control and proposed design and landscaping improvement. This is discussed further in the assessment below. • The car park is a great use of the derelict land Page 37
Page 38
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comment: Prior to the unauthorised development this land was not derelict or vacant, but a wooded space forming part of the community’s Open Space Protection Area • The erection of a retaining wall would make the area more attractive and give a better first impression to the village. Officer Comment: The proposed design and siting of this application is considered in the assessment below. • Planting woodland to screen the site will only enhance the look of the village and encourage more wildlife Officer Comment: The application proposes some landscaping and planting in a bid to mitigate the harm to biodiversity following the unauthorised development of this greenfield site. This matter is discussed further in the report below. • The proposed car parking will benefit the community as it will help alleviate parking issues in the village- particularly on the residential streets surrounding the car garage. • It would be hard to make a case against extra parking in the village. Officer Comment: The proposed development is to create/ regularise the private vehicle storage yard for use by the Applicant in association with his garage business. There is no public access or parking proposed. The site has been actively used since 2021 and parking issues associated with the Applicant’s business operations have persisted. In the event this application was approved, there is no planning mechanism to ensure the Applicant does not store vehicles associated with his business on the public road. This matter is discussed further in the report below. • The garage is a vital part of the community, offering jobs and vital car repairs. • This application is from the largest employer in the community and this application is required to support growth of this important business. Officer Comment: This matter is assessed alongside NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development) in the body of the report. • The application site is part of the OSPA that has long been degraded. This site represents only 10/12% of the overall OSPA. Officer Comment: The harm to the OSPA designation and significant conflict with the Local Development Plan is outlined in the report below. The existing ‘degradation’ of the site is a result of the unauthorised development of the site by the Applicant. This retrospective application seeks to formalise this development, with proposed landscaping and boundary treatment. Page 38
Page 39
Classification: OFFICIAL • Although a number of trees were removed, these were of poor quality and self- seeded. The site was also contaminated by Japanese Knotweed. Officer Comment: This matter is considered in the report below. • This site is not considered important to birds and wildlife within the village. Officer Comment: Biodiversity implications are considered in the report. • Garelochhead Residents Association are amazed and disappointed that Planning Officers are likely to recommend refusal, partly because the application site is part of an Open Space Protection Area. • There are a large number of representations supporting this application. There have been no representations from the community objecting to this application Officer Comment: The recommended reasons for refusal are set out in the report. Whilst the proposal is subject to public support, the matters raised are not considered sufficient justification to merit a departure from the relevant provisions of the Local Development Plan. In light of the public support for the proposal contrary to officer recommendation, the application has been referred to the Planning, Protective Services, and Licensing Committee (PPSL) for determination. • A site visit by the PPSL Committee is requested. Officer Comment: This application is not considered to be of sufficient complexity or novel issue to merit a site visit by Members. Nonetheless, the decision to complete a site visit prior to the determination of this application remains with Members. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) A Sustainability Checklist ☒Yes ☐No Page 39
Page 40
Classification: OFFICIAL Flood Risk Assessment Report compiled by Gavia Environmental (28/03/2024). • Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) including hydraulic modelling for a proposed development. • According to the SEPA Flood Maps (SEPA 2021), there is high risk (1 in 10 year) of a fluvial flooding across most of the Site associated with McAuley Burn. Overall, the Site building is considered to be at high risk from fluvial flooding. • The Site is not at risk of surface water flooding within the Site boundary. There is an area of medium risk (1 in 200 year) of surface water flooding in association with the dip in the B782 road. Overall, the Site is considered to be at little or no risk from surface water flooding. • There is an indicative high risk (1 in 10 year) of coastal flooding along McAuley Burn. Lower risk events encroach into the Site, however, the majority remains free from flooding. Overall, the Site is considered to be at medium risk from coastal flooding. • The Site is considered to be at little or no risk from groundwater flooding. • There is no indication that hazard from infrastructural sources is present in the nearby area and assuming proposed drainage is designed to relevant standards, infrastructural flooding would typically pose little to no risk. • During the 1 in 200 year event there would be no inundation, outwith McAuley Burn banks, within the Site or roadway. Including climate change allowances, the maximum water level would reach 5.19m AOD and flow back into the roadway. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No Page 40
Page 41
Classification: OFFICIAL (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 20 – Blue and Green Infrastructure NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Productive Places NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 81 – Open Space Protection Areas (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses Page 41
Page 42
Classification: OFFICIAL • Planning History • SEPA Flood Mapping • The Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal • DPEA PPA-130-2090 (Planning Permission Appeal) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No A number of representations of support have been received in response to the proposal. The recommended decision to refuse this application conflicts with the body of public support. However, this is a local application that conflicts with the development plan, and it is considered that the proposal does not raise complex or novel issues that require discussion by way of hearing. As such, it is considered unlikely that a pre-determination hearing would add significant value to the decision-making process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Open Space Protection Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: N/A Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☒Yes ☐No Page 42
Page 43
Classification: OFFICIAL See assessment below re removal of woodland and relevance to the proposed development. Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☒No details to be secured by condition ☐N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☐Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☒Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The Proposal This application seeks to regularise the existing unauthorised use of land as a vehicle storage yard. The proposed use is required to support the Applicant’s garage business located within the centre of Garelochhead. This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (case reference: 21/00049/ENOTH3). An application was not encouraged given the clear and significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. The Site This is a prominent site that sits at the junction with the B872 Whistlefield Road towards Portincaple to the North and the B833 to the Rosneath Peninsula to the south. The site is within the Bendarroch Park Open Space Protection Area which encompasses land to the north of the B833 and land to the south. The site has not been previously developed and is a greenfield site. Design & Siting The proposed low stone boundary and planting would improve the current condition of the land and help to lessen the existing visual harm of the vehicle storage yard in line with accepted design principles. However, the storage of vehicles at this prominent site in an incongruous use within the surrounding woodland and greenspace. The loss of the visual amenity afforded by the greenfield site is not considered to be outweighed by the proposed design improvements. There is therefore a conflict with Placemaking principles set out in the Local Development Plan. Biodiversity The site is bounded on two sides by the McAuley Burn. Native riparian edge woodland frames the southern bank of the Burn and, prior to its removal, connected with the native woodland of the proposed development site. Whilst trees have also been removed from the adjacent land, there still exists substantial woodland habitat Page 43
Page 44
Classification: OFFICIAL to support localised nature networks and those of the riparian corridor within and alongside the Burn. The proposed fragmentation of the OSPA and development of this site is likely to disrupt localised nature networks contrary to the Local Development Plan. However, there is the potential to secure compensatory planting and biodiversity enhancement plan by Condition to create and strengthen localised nature networks and to mitigate the impact of the development. Open Space Protection Area The development site is relatively modest in size and scale within the Settlement Area; however, the proposal comprises greenfield development within a designated Open Space Protection Area, without sufficiently meeting the exceptions set out within LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). The proposed greenfield development would constitute a loss of amenity open space, that would have an adverse impact upon biodiversity, and which fails to respect the landscape character of the area. It is considered that the built development and highly visible use of vehicle storage has a significant impact upon the amenity value of the site and the wider OSPA, contrary to the Local Development Plan. Economic Policy Other than the land being in the Applicant’s ownership there is no explanation or justification as to why the greenfield development of this site is required. Nor is it adequately explained how the existing garage site is insufficient to support the Applicant’s business operations, or how the additional storage space in this location would support the business. In turn, this application fails to demonstrate the requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development), contrary to the Local Development Plan. Conclusion Whilst the proposed improvements to the existing unauthorised development will enhance the condition of the site, there remains significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. Letters of support have been submitted from local residents encouraged by the proposed improvement of the condition of the site and the opportunity to alleviate parking concerns within the Settlement centre. However, the proposed greenfield development is to create a private vehicle storage yard for the use of the Applicant and presents no discernible wider public benefit to justify the departure from the Local Development Plan. The development site is within a designated Open Space Protection Area as set out in LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). The proposed development would contribute to the fragmentation of the OSPA and actively devalues the amenity value of the greenspace, and of the wider OSPA. The proposal does not give rise to wider economic benefit, and it has not been adequately demonstrated that this development accords with NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). The proposed development conflicts with the Local Development Plan, with no significant material considerations to justify this departure. For the reasons set out Page 44
Page 45
Classification: OFFICIAL in the proposed Reasons For Refusal (below), it is recommended that planning permission should be refused. A full report is provided in Appendix A. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☐Yes ☒No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be REFUSED: The proposal is considered to be in conflict with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to grant planning permission having regard to s25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Spence Date: 01.11.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 01.11.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 45
Page 46
Classification: OFFICIAL REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01249/PP 1. The proposed development presents significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings); LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas); Policy 04 (Sustainable Development); and Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas): a) The greenfield development is not allocated for this proposed use, contrary to NPF4 Policy 09. b) The proposed use on greenfield site is not compatible with the surrounding land use and designation as Open Space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 01. c) The proposed use does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land and would devalue the amenity open space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 04. d) The proposed development would lead to fragmentation of the OSPA to the detriment of visual amenity and character of the area and of the wider designation, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. 2. There is significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 26 (d) (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development): a) The site is not allocated for Business and Industry use, and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP, nor that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area contrary to NPF4 Policy 26 (d) and LDP2 Policy 22. b) It has not been adequately demonstrated that the development proposal meets the terms of LDP2 Policy 22 (b). Page 46
Page 47
Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01249/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. The Proposal 1.1 This retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action (case reference: 21/00049/ENOTH3). This application seeks to regularise the existing unauthorised use of land as a vehicle storage yard and the creation of an access and laying of hardstanding. This application also proposes the erection of a boundary wall and landscaping. The storage of vehicles is required to support the Applicant’s garage business located within the Garelochhead centre. 2. The Site 2.1 The site is located in the Settlement Area of Garelochhead at the junction of Whistlefield Road (B872) from the North and the B833 southbound towards the Rosneath Peninsula. The west and south of the site is edged by the McAuley Burn. The site is within the Bendarroch Park Open Space Protection Area which encompasses land to the north of the B833 and land to the south. The Applicant also owns an area of the OSPA designated land to the south of the site, although this is not included within a blue line boundary within the application. The site has not been previously developed and is a greenfield site. 3. Design & Siting 3.1 This is a prominent site that sits at the junction with the B872 Whistlefield Road towards Portincaple to the North and the B833 to the Rosneath Peninsula to the south. Previously the site contributed to the tree-lined entrance to the settlement centre from this direction, with woodland on either side of the B872 creating an attractive green buffer zone between residential properties to the west and Garelochhead centre to the east. Currently, the site is secured by the long-term use of Heras fencing with hard standing facilitating the informal storage of vehicles on site. 3.2 The proposed low stone boundary wall would provide a uniform boundary treatment to this side of the road, continuing the stone wall at the road bridge and that of the adjoining land (telephone exchange). The wall would also mirror the existing low stone wall on the opposite side of the road, improving the overall street scene and thoroughfare into Garelochhead centre. 3.3 The proposed low stone boundary and planting will certainly be an improvement on the current condition of the land and help to lessen the existing visual harm of the vehicle storage yard in line with much of the design principles set out within NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place), LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking) and Policy 10 (Design). However, the proposed design must be considered against the condition of the land prior to unauthorised development occurring. The storage of vehicles at this site in an incongruous use within the surrounding woodland and greenspace, at such a prominent location. The loss of the visual amenity afforded by the greenfield site is not considered to be outweighed by the proposed design improvements. 3.4 As set out within NPF4 Policy 14, development proposals that are detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places will not be supported. It is considered that the proposed development is detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area owing to the loss of green open space; and does not accord Page 47
Page 48
Classification: OFFICIAL with all six qualities of successful places in terms of being Sustainable, Pleasant, and Healthy. 3.5 There also exists a conflict with LDP2 Policy 05 as the proposed use is not compatible with the surrounding land use of open green space. The proposed use does not appropriately respond to the natural environment as the loss of natural space to form a vehicle storage yard for the main garage business located elsewhere cannot be viewed as a sustainable use of this site. 3.6 Further, through a number of site visits completed over the past 18 months, it has been often observed that the site is at near full capacity of approximately 20 vehicles. It is unclear how the site would accommodate 30 designated spaces, turning and manoeuvring space, and planting of trees and shrubs as indicated in the submitted plans within the limitations of the site. Potential revisions to the submitted plans, along with a more detailed landscaping plan, would help to clarify the capacity and parking arrangements possible at the site. 3.7 The loss of amenity value through the development of the greenfield land in this prominent location is not outweighed by the proposed design improvements of the site. There is therefore a conflict with Placemaking principles set out in the Local Development Plan within NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place) and LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking). 4. Biodiversity and Nature Networks Woodland 4.1 Historical mapping shows that in June 2018 the site was comprised of dense woodland. Between then and 2021 the land has been cleared of all trees and hardstanding installed. In the Supporting Statement it is explained that the removal of woodland predates the unauthorised development and was required for the treatment and removal of Japanese Knotweed. It is argued that the removal of the woodland was not undertaken to facilitate this development and so should not be a consideration in the determination of this application. 4.2 Removal of woodland does not amount to development in itself; nor does the treatment and removal of an invasive species such as Japanese Knotweed. The Applicant has confirmed that the Knotweed was treated by chemical spraying. In the absence of any further information, it is unclear how or why the treatment of Knotweed required the wholesale removal of woodland from the site. The proposed use is clearly incompatible with tree cover on the site and could only be facilitated by its removal. The woodland provided significant amenity value to the Settlement, recognised by virtue of the OSPA designation. Without development the site could reasonably be expected to regenerate over time, with natural woodland restoration. Therefore, the relevant tree and woodland removal policies of the LDP should be considered. 4.3 As set out in the LDP2 Policy 77 (Forestry, Woodland, and Trees), there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting our woodland and removal of woodland resources will only be permitted where it would achieve significant and clearly defined additional public benefits. Similarly, NPF4 Policy 06 (Forestry, Woodland, and Trees) does not support development proposals that have an adverse impact on native woodland of high biodiversity value or involve the fragmentation or severing of woodland habitats. 4.4 The perceived poor quality of the woodland as noted in the Supporting Statement has not been demonstrated within the application. As noted by the Biodiversity Officer, the proposed tree planting is an improvement on the current condition of the site however, there is still a lack of connectivity, and it is recommended that the native woodland on either side Page 48
Page 49
Classification: OFFICIAL of the site be continued through to meet one another. Were this application to be taken forward, a more detailed landscaping plan and potential compensatory planting would be required to offset the harm to biodiversity. Biodiversity 4.5 The site is bounded on two sides by the McAuley Burn. Native riparian edge woodland frames the southern bank of the Burn and, prior to its removal, connected the native woodland of the proposed development site. Whilst trees have also been removed from the adjacent land (also within the OSPA), there still exists substantial woodland habitat to support localised nature networks and those of the riparian corridor within and alongside the Burn. 4.6 As noted by the Biodiversity Officer, prior to unauthorised development the site had suitable habitat present for European Protected Species (EPS) and Protected Species (PS). No information has been submitted to demonstrate that the site was appropriately surveyed to ensure the presence of EPS or PS prior to the woodland removal, treatment of Knotweed and subsequent development of the site. The Officer advises that had this application not been submitted in retrospect they would expect to have tree, species, and habitat surveys to help assess the biodiversity value of the site. As the site has been largely cleared of vegetation (a grassed perimeter to the river banks remain) the information required from these surveys is not available. 4.7 It is also noted that a representation made on behalf of the Loch Lomond Fisheries Trust indicates that the Burn is a valuable spawning site for sea trout. Were the application to be progressed, a relevant survey for the Burn would be required to ensure the appropriate measures were in place to preserve and enhance the habitat as required. 4.8 In the application it has not been adequately demonstrated that the development preserves or enhances local habitats within and around the site. Similarly, the application fails to demonstrate that the proposal would not have a negative impact upon existing green and blue infrastructure or would not result in the fragmentation or loss of integrity of existing green networks; contrary to NPF4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure), and LDP2 Policy 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure). 4.9 As noted by the Development Policy Officer, prior to the recent removal of trees the site contributed towards the integrity of the green infrastructure and associated amenity value. The fragmentation of the OSPA and active development of this site is likely to disrupt localised nature networks. This is contrary to NPF4 Policy 01 (Tackling the climate and nature crises), which seeks to promote nature-positive places and promotes nature recover and restoration. Similarly, in the absence of any information regarding existing habitats and biodiversity, this proposal is considered to be in conflict with NPF4 Policy 03 (Biodiversity), and LDP2 Policy 73 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity). 4.10 The presence of woodland was of important visual amenity value to the local area. Without the proposed development, it is expected that the site would in time be reclaimed by nature and still provide an important visual amenity value to Garelochhead and preserve the function/ amenity value of the OSPA. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the aims of NPF4 Policy 06 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees), LDP2 Policy 77 (Forestry, Woodland and Trees). However, were this application to be taken forward, there is the potential to secure compensatory planting and enhanced landscaping by Condition to restore and strengthen localised nature networks and to mitigate the impact of the development, in line with LDP2 Policy 78 (Woodland Removal). As there is potential for mitigation of the harm, the conflict with Biodiversity and Woodland policies is not considered a determining factor in the assessment of this application. Page 49
Page 50
Classification: OFFICIAL 5. Greenfield Development & Designated Open Space Protection Area 5.1 The development site is relatively modest in size and scale within the Settlement Area, however, as it comprises greenfield development within a designated Open Space Protection Area, without sufficiently meeting the exceptions set out within the relevant Policies, the proposed development is contrary the Local Development Plan. 5.2 Firstly, LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) outlines that development proposals within Settlement Areas would normally be acceptable provided it is within an area of land allocated for that purpose; it is the redevelopment of a brownfield site; is of an appropriate scale and fit, and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding area in terms of density, scale, massing design, and access arrangements. The proposed development must also comply with all relevant LDP2 Policies. As the land carries an Open Space designation and is not a brownfield site, the proposal does not accord with this policy. 5.3 In addition, NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) indicates that proposals on greenfield sites will not be supported unless allocated for development or explicitly supported by policies in the local development plan. The site is within the settlement boundary of Garelochhead as defined within LDP2 and is not allocated for the proposed use. 5.4 Further, LDP2 Policy 04 (Sustainable Development) supports development where sustainable development principles are demonstrated. It is argued by the Applicant that the proposed use of this site would alleviate parking, congestion, and road safety issues within the Settlement centre. The proposed vehicular parking site however would be private with no public parking or access. It is considered that parking issues caused by the Applicant through existing business practices could be resolved with better site/business management rather than through the proposed greenfield development upon land unconnected to the main business. The proposed use of the site is therefore of limited community benefit and would not justify a departure from this Policy. 5.5 As noted by the Development Management Policy Officer, an assessment in terms of whether the development would affect the integrity of the overall OSPA as well as the character and amenity value within the village if required in the determination of this application. The proposed development does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land in accordance with LDP2 Policy 04. Significantly, the proposed greenfield development contributes to the loss of amenity open space (g), has an adverse impact upon biodiversity (h), and fails to respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of the settlement, contrary to the aims of this Policy. 5.6 As noted in LDP2 (preamble to policy 81), a greenspace amenity area includes ‘Accessible and non-accessible areas that provide visual amenity functions in and around our settlements such as maintaining setting, identity or character or by providing visual green spaces within more built up areas’. The value of open space designations is also set out by the Scottish Government Planning Advice Note (PAN) 65 (Planning and Open Space), which informs the Local Authority’s policy response to the provision and enhancement of open spaces. The PAN notes that open spaces help to define landscape or townscape structure, provides a range of opportunities for recreation and leisure, and link and create wildlife habitats. 5.7 The site is protected from built development by LDP2 Policy 81 (e) (Open Space Protection Areas) unless the proposed development can demonstrate no loss of the amenity value and alternative provision of equal benefit and accessibility can be made available. Page 50
Page 51
Classification: OFFICIAL 5.8 In the Supporting Statement it is argued that LDP2 Policy 81 exception (a) applies- specifically where the development proposal ‘involves a very minor part of the site and in either case would not affect its integrity and continued existing use or amenity value’. In the Statement it is argued that the development results in ‘the loss of less than 5% of the total area of the OSPA, which historically was never land over which the public were able to gain access’. The applicant also argues that the loss of ‘such a small part of the overall OSPA’ would not affect its overall integrity as the majority of the OSPA would remain fully accessible by members of the pubic for the purposes of informal recreation. The proposed development however is not ancillary to the principal use of the site, and whilst the site may represent a relatively small section of the wider OSPA, the proposal directly affects its integrity as an OSPA site and the amenity value provided by the valuable greenspace. I cannot therefore agree that the requirements of exception (a) of LDP2 Policy 81 are met. 5.10 Exception (e) listed in the policy refers to greenspace amenity areas which is directly applicable to this site and the proposed development. However it has not been adequately demonstrated that there would be no loss of amenity value, nor has an alternative provision of equal benefit and accessibility been made in the submission of this application. Rather, it is considered that the built development and highly visible use of vehicle storage has a significant impact upon the amenity value of the site and the wider OSPA, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. This conflict is considered to be of significant weight to warrant a refusal to this application. 5.11 I note also the recent DPEA Appeal Decision (case reference: PPA-130-2090, Connel, Oban Argyll and Bute) made on 15th August 2024 concerning proposed development within an OSPA. The appeal was dismissed and planning permission refused. In the Decision Notice the Reporter agreed that the piecemeal erosion, or fragmentation of the OSPA at that location, would threaten the overall integrity of the network, contrary to LDP2 Policy 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure) and NPF4 Policy 20 (Blue and Green Infrastructure). 6. Economic Policy 6.1 Under LDP2 Policy 22 (b) (Economic Development) development proposals outwith the preferred areas for business and industry are required to demonstrate that there are no suitable sites within the preferred areas. In cases where the need had been demonstrated the development is also required to (a) reflect the character of an area; (c) avoid greenfield sites where brownfield sites is available in close proximity; and (d) will not erode residential amenity of the area. Similarly, NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) requires Applicants to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP; and that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area (d). 6.2 It is argued in the Supporting Statement that ‘The implications for the applicant’s ongoing business operations, should the use of the land for the parking/storage of vehicles not be allowed to continue, is a significant material consideration’. A further Supporting Statement clarifies that that the Applicant’s garage business is ‘Autopoint Fastfit’. Desk-based research shows the garage business is located at 175 Main Street within the centre of Garelochhead. It has been advised by the Applicant that at any one time parking for 30 vehicles is required- a maximum of 15 for sale and 15 for servicing. The garage comprises a large garage/workshop with ample vehicular parking to the front, side and rear in addition to the work bays and space within the large workshop. However, the proposed use of this site is for the storage of 30 vehicles, which would meet the total need of parking spaces for the garage. 6.3 Other than the land being in the Applicant’s ownership there is no explanation or justification as to why the greenfield development of this site is required. Nor is it adequately explained how the existing site is insufficient to support the Applicant’s business operations, or how the additional storage space in this location would support the business, other than Page 51
Page 52
Classification: OFFICIAL reducing the existing congestion caused by the Applicant’s business operations. No further information has been provided to demonstrate how the viability of the business is dependent upon the proposed change of use of land at this site. 6.4 Whilst the viability of an establish business may be a material consideration, there is limited information submitted to demonstrate compliance with/ or justification for divergence from the Local Development Plan. The application before me fails to address policy requirements of NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). The conflict with this policy is of significant weight to amount to a refusal to this application. 7. Residential Amenity 7.1 The use of the site for vehicle storage is relatively passive and presents no concerns for harm to residential amenity in terms of noise, smells, vibrations, odours, or light pollution in accordance with LDP2 Policy 14 (Bad Neighbour Development). Whilst the application suggests that customers can collect vehicles following MOT/servicing, these works will be undertaken at the garage and this site used for car storage only. It is expected that the number of customers attending to collect vehicles from this site rather than the garage itself would be minimal and that the purpose of the site would primarily be for the passive storage of vehicles. This in turn presents no concerns regarding residential disturbance through intensification of use. There are however significant concerns regarding the harm to the visual amenity value of the site for the local area. 8. Road Safety & Parking 8.1 It is noted that there is sufficient distance between the nearby road junction and the site access, with adequate visibility entering and exiting the site. There are no objections from the Roads Authority- subject to standard conditions set out in the Consultation Response- and no identifiable harm to road safety from this proposal to raise conflict with the Local Development Plan. 8.2 A representation made on behalf of the local Residents Association suggests that the site could be regulated by ensuring individual vehicles are not kept on site for a prolonged period of time and that a register of stored vehicles is made available for inspection to be secured by planning condition. I believe the intention is to ensure that the site is not used for end of life vehicles or long term open air storage and therefore likely degradation of vehicles on the site. Were this application to have been taken forward, it is likely that a planning condition to regularise the type and longevity of vehicle storage on the site would be appropriate to ensure no end of life vehicles were stored or dismantled on site in the interests of residential and visual amenity and environmental protection. 9. Flooding 9.1 SEPA flood maps highlight that the site is at a high risk of fluvial flooding with partial risk of future coastal flooding. A flood risk report has been submitted with the application to suggest that the level of likely flooding is unlikely to have any significant effect on the site as a vehicle storage yard, and that in the event of a flood event waters are likely to quickly retreat to the Burn. The proposed development does not meet the criteria exemptions under NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) in that it does not involve the redevelopment of an existing site; is not a water compatible use; and is not essential infrastructure required for operational reasons. However, as the proposed development does not introduce a vulnerable use to the site which minimise potential harm to the public in the event of a flooding event. The conflict with flood risk policies could be addressed through appropriate construction methods, landscaping, and water management programme to ensure appropriate drainage and management to ensure no hardstanding and vehicles/ vehicles parts including fuel and oil do not escape into the Burn in the event of a flood. Page 52
Page 53
Classification: OFFICIAL 9.2 The conflict of NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management) and LDP2 Policy 55 (Flooding) could be minimised through appropriate drainage, water management, and construction quality secured by planning condition, and is thus not a significant determining factor in the assessment of this application. 10. Conclusion 10.1 This retrospective application seeks planning permission to regularise the change of use of land for the storage of vehicles in association with the Applicant’s garage business located within the centre of Garelochhead. Whilst the proposed improvements to the existing unauthorised development will enhance the condition of the site, there remains significant conflict with the Local Development Plan. 10.2 The proposed design improvements would enhance the current condition of the site, and the proposed use presents no obvious harm to residential amenity in terms of noise disturbance, vibrations, smells, etc. Harm to biodiversity and green and blue nature networks are not fully addressed by this application, although further mitigation and improvement could be secured through planning condition were this application to be progressed. No concerns have been raised in regards to road safety with no objections from the Roads Authority. Whilst the site is liable to flooding, it is not considered that the proposed use would put people at risk and potential environmental damage could be mitigated through better design and water management that could also be secured through planning condition. 10.3 A number of letters of support have been submitted from local residents encouraged by the proposed improvement of the condition of the site and the opportunity to alleviate parking concerns in the village by relocating the vehicles associated with the Applicant’s business to this site. However, the proposed greenfield development is to create a private vehicle storage yard for the use of the Applicant and presents no discernible wider public benefit to justify the departure from the Local Development Plan. 10.4 The development site is within a designated Open Space Protection Area as set out in LDP2 Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). Whilst the designation does not prevent all development within the OSPA, developers are required to meet the exemptions set out in the Policy to robustly justify any departure. The proposal does not adequately meet the exceptions to development and is in clear conflict with the Policy. The proposed development would contribute to the fragmentation of the OSPA and actively devalues the amenity value of the greenspace, and of the wider OSPA. 10.5 The proposal does not give rise to wider economic benefit and it has not been adequately demonstrated that this development accords with LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). There is limited information submitted to meet the terms of and to justify a departure from the Development Plan in respect to the development of the greenfield and OSPA site for the purpose of business operations unconnected with the site. 10.6 The proposed development is in conflict with the Local Development Plan, with no significant material considerations to justify this departure. It is therefore recommended that this application is refused planning permission: 1. The proposed development presents significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings); LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas); Policy 04 (Sustainable Development); and Policy 81 (Open Space Protection Areas). a) The greenfield development is not allocated for this proposed use, contrary to NPF4 Policy 09. Page 53
Page 54
Classification: OFFICIAL b) The proposed use on greenfield site is not compatible with the surrounding land use and designation as Open Space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 01. c) The proposed use does not make efficient use of vacant or derelict land and would devalue the amenity open space, contrary to LDP2 Policy 04. d) The proposed development would lead to fragmentation of the OSPA to the detriment of visual amenity and character of the area and of the wider designation, contrary to LDP2 Policy 81. 2. There is significant conflict with NPF4 Policy 26 (d) (Business and Industry) and LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development). a) The site is not allocated or Business and Industry use and it has not been adequately demonstrated that there are no suitable alternatives allocated in the LDP, nor that the nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area contrary to NPF4 Policy 26 (d) and LDP2 Policy 22. b) It has not been adequately demonstrated that the development proposal meets the terms of LDP2 Policy 22 (b). Page 54
Page 55
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 O 1:1,000 0 9.5 194.75 Meters Location Plan Relative to Planning Application: 24/01249/PP Page 55
Page 56
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 57
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT & ECONOMIC GROWTH 22 January 2025 Confirming a Tree Preservation Order at Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu 1. INTRODUCTION This paper recommends the Tree Preservation Order on a Beech Tree in the garden of Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu (Appendix 1 - Location Plan) is confirmed. 2. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Tree Preservation Order is confirmed in accordance with Section 160 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for area marked on the attached plan (Appendix 1). 3. LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT Argyll and Bute Council, as planning authority, may make a TPO to protect individual tree(s), groups of trees or woodland where it is expedient in the interests of amenity and/or that the trees/groups of trees/woodland are of cultural or historical significance. Further information on the legislation and procedures can be found in Planning Circular 1/2011: Tree Preservation Order. 4. BACKGROUND The request for the Tree Preservation Order was lodged on 30th December 2023 by the neighbours, due to a perceived threat of removal of the trees given the owners of The Linton had cleared almost all other trees and shrubs in their garden and the trees were not located within the Rhu Conservation Area. Members considered and approved the serving of a TPO on the beech tree at the PPSL meeting of 22nd May 2024 on amenity grounds. The TPO was served and came into effect on 26th August and there was a period of 28 days allowed for representations to be made. An advert appeared in the local newspaper on 29th August 2024 and a certified copy of the Order was displayed in the Helensburgh Civic Centre for 28 days for public viewing from this date. The TPO must be confirmed before the 26th February 2025 or it expires. 5. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 02/00527/DET - Erection of dwellinghouse at Land West to Hillcroft, Lineside Walk, Rhu, Helensburgh, Dunbartonshire – Approved with conditions 02.07.2022. The condition states: “ No trees or shrubs shall be topped, lopped, felled or otherwise removed from the site without first obtaining written approval from the Planning Authority. Page 57 Agenda Item 5
Page 58
Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: To maintain the landscape setting for the dwelling and in particular the backdrop and screen from the existing dwellings to the north at Station Road.” Tree Works Applications at Linton, Rhu • 24/00701/TPO Proposed felling of 1 Beech Tree and lopping of beech tree – approved 23.05.2024 Extract from Report of Handling: T2 Beech Tree appears in good condition for its age (mature). It is not leaning and does not have ivy growing on it. It is located in the far corner of the garden and is approx. 10m from the house and any neighbouring houses. It is a very large, mature and prominent tree with good visibility from public views, including from Station Road. It is not a veteran, rare or unusual tree. The works to this tree is to take 8-10 metres off the top to make the tree steadier and lesson the changes of danger to the public in the increasing winds. 6. DETAILS OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED There were 1 representation received from: - Donna Ramsay, Linton, Rhu (owner of tree) Below is a summary comments in objection: • The tree surgeon has information that the beech tree has bad rot all the way through. • It is that bad that they will need a cherry picker undertake the tree works and they will try and preserve as much as they can but the tree surgeon states the tree is best condemned. • Photos have been enclosed from the tree surgeon (see Appendix 2). • The tree is in close proximity to the house and if a branch fell on the house or the next door neighbour’s new shed and he has condemned it then we will not be able to claim insurance for damage to property. • We have the intention to plant more trees including Japanese Acers and another four native trees – a total of 8 trees and we will include another beech tree. 7. ASSESSMENT Members may recall that the previous report explained that two trees were requested for TPO but only one tree was worthy. A Tree Assessment using the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Order (TEMPO) method was undertaken by the planning officer without the benefit of any formal tree surgeon report and it was considered that one of the two beech trees appeared of significant amenity value to be worthy of TPO. Since then, as the planning history sets out, a Tree Works application was received and approved to fell the beech tree that was not subject to a TPO, but was protected by condition, and also undertake some crown removal on the tree that was subject to the TPO. The tree works have now been undertaken and part of the crown has been removed in accordance with the Tree Works application. As the applicant has submitted the above comments regarding the health of the tree then it was considered prudent to obtain a Tree Report from a qualified arboriculturist in order to ensure whether the tree poses any danger to nearby properties and is in the poor health as described by the owner. Page 58
Page 59
Classification: OFFICIAL The Tree Report was commissioned by Argyll and Bute Council and undertaken on 4th December 2024 by Graeme Millar a qualified arboricultural consultant with extensive experience advising clients in relation to trees and safety. He holds a Diploma in Arboriculture and Urban Forestry and is a Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association. The report concludes that the tree needs monitoring but does not require removal due to potential harm to people or property. The report states that the tree was “recently topped at 15m with further unsympathetic pruning works in upper crown. The aerial imagery shows vigorous wound-wood development and historic tree surgery to raise clear canopy heights with all wounds occluding with associated decaying stumps.” The condition of the tree was considered to be ‘Fair’, the age class ‘Mature’ and estimated remaining years to be 20-30 years. It is classified as B1 category tree “Tree of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of 20 years”. Members should note there are 4 categories used in Tree Surveys – A, B, C and U – unsuitable for retention. We have revised the tree assessment based on the new information – Condition now being marked as a score of ‘3’ - Fair instead of good, a score of ‘2’ for retention span and a score of ‘4’ for amenity value remain unchanged, then a further score of ‘1’ for other factors and a score of ‘2’ for perceived threat. This gives a score of 12 which means the tree just meets the score level to be defensible. Members should note the original score had been 14 prior to having the professional report from the arboriculturist. 0 Do not apply TPO 1 - 6 TPO indefensible 7 - 10 Does not merit TPO 11 - 14 TPO defensible 15+ Definitely merits TPO The purpose of a TPO is not to impede tree management or insist on tree retention in all circumstances, but rather to prevent undue removal or poor management of valuable trees and if removed, to ensure replacement of a valuable tree. Despite the new information the tree remains important for the amenity of the area given its height and a really attractive canopy and the TPO will secure its replacement should it be felled. The owner is going to make a commitment to retain the tree and any further tree works or felling will require a tree works application to be made, and the necessary Tree Report to be submitted to justify its removal, and will allow for public representation to be made. It is therefore still considered that the tree merits a TPO. 8. CONCLUSION There is currently a Tree Preservation Order in force. It is considered that the Beech Tree contributes to the immediate streetscape and, despite the new information about its health, it remains worthy of greater protection that a Tree Preservation Order provides rather than the planning condition. This would secure a replacement tree should it be removed for health reasons 9. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Tree Preservation Order is confirmed in accordance with Section 160 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 for area marked on the attached plan (Appendix 1). 10. IMPLICATIONS Page 59
Page 60
Classification: OFFICIAL 10.1 Policy – None 10.2 Financial – None 10.3 Legal – None 10.4 HR – None 10.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 10.5.1 Equalities – protected characteristics – None 10.5.2 Socio-economic duty – None 10.5.3 Islands - None 10.6 Risk – None 10.7 Customer Service – None 10.8 Climate Change – None Kirsty Flanagan – Executive Director with Responsibility for Development and Economic Growth Fergus Murray – Head of Development and Economic Growth For Further Information Contact: Kirsty Sweeney – Area Team Leader – 01436 657665 POLICY LEAD – Councillor Kieron Green Appendix 1 – Location Plan Appendix 2 – Objectors Photographs Appendix 3 – Photos taken by Planning Officer Appendix 4 – Tree Report Page 60
Page 61
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix 1 – Site Location Plan Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 63
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix 2 – Photos submitted by Objector Page 63
Page 64
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 64
Page 65
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 65
Page 66
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 67
Classification: OFFICIAL Appendix 3 – Photos of Beech since works took place (taken by officer) Page 67
Page 68
Classification: OFFICIAL Page 68
Page 69
Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu, G84 8JH December 2024 Appendix 4 Page 69
Page 70
PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information: Location: Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu, G84 8JH Grid Reference: NS 27314 84402 Survey Details: Surveyor: Graeme Millar Date of Survey: 04 December 2024 Report Details: Project Reference: 101071 Project Title: Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Report Title: Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) Document Reference: 101071_01 Date of Issue: 05 December 2024 Version: 01 Client Details: Name: Kirsty Sweeney Organisation: Argyll and Bute Council Address: Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Company Details: Company Name: TREEPLANNER LTD Company No: SC786795 Registered Office: 40 Balmoral Crescent, Inchinnan, PA4 9PU Tel: 0141 345 2849 Email: info@treeplanner.co.uk Web: www.treeplanner.co.uk This report has been produced by TREEPLANNER LTD. with all due skill and care, in accordance with the terms agreed upon with the Client. The contents of this report are confidential and intended solely for the Client. TREEPLANNER LTD. disclaims any liability to third parties who may become aware of this report. Reproduction or modification of any portion of this document is prohibited without the prior written consent of TREEPLANNER LTD. Table of Contents OVERVIEW 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................... 3 PRELIMINARIES 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................................................... 4 3 SITE OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 4 4 METHODS ........................................................................................................... 4 5 DESK STUDY FINDINGS .................................................................................. 5 VISUAL TREE ASSESSMENT (VTA) 6 VTA FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 6 7 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 7 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD ...................................................... 8 APPENDIX 2. TREE SURVEY PLAN ............................................................... 11 APPENDIX 3. CASCADE CHART FOR TREE QUALITY ASSESSMENT .. 12 APPENDIX 4. VTA SURVEY SCHEDULE KEY .............................................. 13 Page 70
Page 71
101071_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Page 3 of 13 OVERVIEW 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) was commissioned by Ms. Kirsty Sweeney, Area Team Leader of Development Management for Argyll and Bute Council, to evaluate the condition of an individual tree located within the residential property known as Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu, G84 8JH. The primary aim of the assessment was to determine the tree's quality and to determine its physiological and structural condition. The assessment identified the tree as a mature common beech (Fagus sylvatica) situated on a south-west-facing embankment in the north-east corner of the rear garden. Observations highlighted historical wounding and recent pruning and topping at approximately 15.0m. Aerial imagery confirmed the vigorous development of wound-wood over historic defects in the upper crown, indicating good recovery. The tree was evaluated using the BS5837 quality assessment criteria and in light of the recent management interventions, classified as Category 'B1'. Given the tree's location within a residential garden and its previous management history, this report recommends: 1. Regular Arboricultural Monitoring: A follow-up VTA should be conducted by a qualified arboriculturist 15 months from the date of this report. This will allow observations over seasonal changes and facilitate early detection of any emerging risks. 2. Management Actions: While no immediate interventions are required to address significant hazards, monitoring for structural changes or decay in wounds is essential to minimise risks over time. These recommendations aim to address safety concerns while maintaining the ecological and aesthetic contributions of the tree to the local area. Ongoing management and monitoring will ensure the tree's health and stability are prioritised, safeguarding both site users and the surrounding property. Page 71
Page 72
101071_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Page 4 of 13 PRELIMINARIES 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE 2.1 Instruction 2.1.1 TREEPLANNER LTD. was commissioned by Kirsty Sweeney (Area Team Leader, Development Management, Argyll and Bute Council) to produce a Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) report on an individual tree attributable to a residential property known as Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu, G84 8JH. 2.2 Author qualifications 2.2.1 Graeme Millar is a qualified arboricultural consultant with extensive experience advising clients in relation to trees and safety. He holds a Higher National Diploma in Arboriculture & Urban Forestry and is a Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association. 2.3 Aims and objectives 2.3.1 This report aims to assess the nature, condition, and characteristics of an individual landscape tree attributable to a residential property. 2.4 Field study 2.4.1 The field study was conducted on 04 December 2024. The survey quality was not affected by inclement weather. 2.5 Disclaimers 2.5.1 This report was prepared exclusively for use by the client in accordance with the terms of the contract. No responsibility is accepted for any actions taken by a third party arising from their interpretation of the information contained within this report. 2.5.2 This survey specifically addresses the health and safety risks posed by trees. Where potential hazards have been identified, an appropriate strategy for management is recommended. 2.5.3 The survey conclusions relate solely to the conditions recorded at the time of inspection. 2.5.4 It is important to recognise that there is no such thing as a completely safe tree. Trees are living organisms that can be affected by numerous factors, including age, structural integrity, environmental conditions, and unforeseen weather events. Even healthy trees can present risks, particularly during extreme weather or due to sudden, unforeseen failure of limbs. 2.5.5 This report aims to assess the current condition of trees and provide recommendations to mitigate identifiable risks, but it cannot guarantee the future safety of any tree. Regular monitoring and maintenance are essential to manage potential hazards and adapt to changes in tree condition over time. 2.5.6 The VTA survey schedule presented in this document may include management recommendations but is not a schedule of works and is not designed to be submitted to a contractor. 2.5.7 The Tree Survey Plan appended to this report includes all individual trees and tree groups recorded during the field study. In the absence of any supplied topographical survey, trees and tree groups were plotted in the field using GPS receivers typically accurate to within 2.0m. 3 SITE OVERVIEW 3.1 Location and context 3.1.1 The subject tree is located within the rear gardens of a residential property on Lineside Walk, Rhu. The site is set within a primarily residential area with neighbouring homes and gardens surrounding it on all sides. The surrounding area benefits from good garden tree cover providing significant amenity and ecological value; however, the subject specimen is the only tree attributable to Linton. Beyond the residential properties sited to the north lies approximately 4.0 hectares of mixed native deciduous woodland. 4 METHODS 4.1 Tree survey 4.1.1 Trees and tree groups were assessed in accordance with the principles of the Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) method (Mattheck et al). Page 72
Page 73
101071_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Page 5 of 13 4.1.2 Observations were made from ground level and with the aid of aerial drone imagery. The survey did not include detailed or invasive investigations. As such, internal decay or defects may not be fully detectable through visual inspection alone. 4.1.3 Trees were measured using diameter tape and a clinometer. Where this was not possible or practical, measurements were estimated. 4.1.4 The following information was recorded: • Tree / Group No. • Species • Height & Stem Diameter • Crown spread • Condition • General observations • Management recommendations • Estimated contribution • BS5837 quality category 4.2 Tree survey plan 4.2.1 Trees and tree groups were plotted on a Tree Survey Plan using a GPS receiver typically accurate to within 2.0m. 4.2.2 Information presented on the Tree Survey Plan includes: • Tree Number • Tree Locations • Crown Extents • BS5837 Quality Category Colour 4.3 Desk study 4.3.1 A desk study was undertaken in conjunction with the field survey to gather information on tree stock. The desk study includes a review of: • Tree Preservation Orders1 and Conservation Areas2 5 DESK STUDY FINDINGS 5.1 Tree Preservation Orders and Conservation Areas 5.1.1 The assessed tree is not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and does not lie within a Conservation Area. 1 Available at: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-guidance/tree- preservation-orders (Accessed 05 December 2024) 5.1.2 To the immediate east of the adjacent Station Road are two designated group Tree Preservation Orders: • TPO 03/98 – Airlig/High Laggary, Station Road, Rhu (May 1999) • TPO 8B – Laggary, Rhu (March 1972) 5.1.3 Directly south of the site, across Lineside Walk, lies the boundary of the Rhu Conservation Area. 2 Available at: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024- 07/Rhu_Conservation_Area.pdf (Accessed 05 December 2024) Page 73
Page 74
101064_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Page 6 of 13 VISUAL TREE ASSESSMENT (VTA) This section should be read in conjunction with the Tree Survey Plan in Appendix 2, Cascade Chart for Tree Quality Assessment in Appendix 3 and the VTA Survey Schedule Key in Appendix 4. 6 VTA FINDINGS 6.1 VTA survey schedule KEY TO TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Prevention of Harm to People: Actions are required to address potential hazards that could cause injury or harm to individuals Prevention of Damage to Property: Actions are required to prevent possible damage to buildings or infrastructure General Canopy Management: Actions are required to address routine management of the tree canopy to promote overall health and longevity TREE SURVEY SCHEDULE – LINTON, LINESIDE WALK, RHU, G84 8JH Tree / Group No. Species (Scientific name) Height (m) Stem Diameter (mm) Crown Spread N Crown Spread S Crown Spread E Crown Spread W Age Class Condition General Observations Management Recommendations: Prevention of Harm to People Management Recommendations: Prevention of Damage to Property Management Recommendations: General Canopy Management Estimated Remaining Contribution (Years) BS5837 Category INDIVIDUALLY RECORDED TREES T2761 Common beech (Fagus sylvatica) 15 750 x1 6 6 5 6 MA F Mature vigorous landscape specimen in NE corner of residential garden sited on SW facing embankment Upper crown development slightly suppressed from E 2 codominant stems from 12.0m Recently topped at 15.0m with further unsympathetic pruning works in upper crown Aerial imagery shows vigorous wound-wood developing over historic wounds Historic tree surgery to raise clear canopy height with all wounds occluding Minor branch fractures and associated decaying stumps __ __ Regular arboricultural monitoring 20-40 B1 Page 74
Page 75
101071_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Page 7 of 13 7 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS These recommendations are intended to meet the site owner’s Duty of Care to users of the site and any adjoining properties. This section should be read in conjunction with the management recommendations set out in the VTA survey schedule in Section 7.1 and the Tree Survey Plan in Appendix 2. 7.1 Arboricultural monitoring 7.1.1 Given the context of the subject tree within a residential garden, it is recommended that another Visual Tree Assessment be conducted by a competent arboriculturist 15 months from the date of this report. 7.1.2 This will allow observations across seasonal changes and provide an updated assessment of tree health. 7.1.3 Regular monitoring will help to identify any new hazards, assess the effectiveness of previous management actions, and ensure that appropriate steps are taken to maintain safety and minimise risks. 7.1.4 Additionally, this assessment will help to anticipate potential future issues and ensure that the tree remains in line with safety and management goals. Page 75
Page 76
101064_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 13 APPENDICES Appendix 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD 360° aerial footage of the subject tree is available here: https://youtu.be/N3BQYsMQViE Image No. 01 Image taken from within the garden showing subject beech tree Image No. 02 Image taken from within Lineside Walk showing subject beech tree Image No. 03 Image taken from Lineside Walk approaching from the SW Page 76
Page 77
101064_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 13 Image No. 07 Aerial image of the subject tree from SW Image No. 08 Aerial image showing the extent of recent topping and pruning works Page 77
Page 78
101064_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 13 Image No. 09 A top-down aerial image showing vigorous wound-wood developing over historic wounds Image No. 10 Aerial image of the site from S Page 78
Page 79
101064_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 13 Appendix 2. TREE SURVEY PLAN Page 79
Page 80
Page 80
Page 81
101071_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Appendix 3. CASCADE CHART FOR TREE QUALITY ASSESSMENT Category and definition Criteria (including subcategories where appropriate) TREES UNSUITABLE FOR RETENTION Category U Those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained as living trees in the context of the current land use for longer than 10 years. • Trees that have a serious, irremediable structural defect such that early loss is expected through collapse or become unviable after removal of other category U trees. • Trees that are dead or are showing signs of significant, immediate, or irreversible overall decline. • Trees infected with pathogens of significance to the health and/or safety of other nearby trees or trees of very low quality, suppressing adjacent trees of better quality. Note: Category U trees can have existing or potential conservation value which it might be desirable to preserve. 1 Arboricultural Value 2 Landscape Value 3 Cultural Value TREES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RETENTION Category A Trees of high quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 40 years Trees that are particularly good examples of their species, especially if rare or unusual. Essential components of groups or formal or semi-formal arboricultural features (i.e., dominant/principal trees in an avenue) Trees, groups, or woodlands of particular visual importance as arboricultural and/or landscape features Trees, groups, or woodlands of significant conservation, historical, commemorative or other value (e.g., Veteran trees or wood-pasture) Category B Trees of moderate quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 20 years Trees that might be included in the high category, but are downgraded because of impaired condition (e.g., remediable defects or poor past management/storm damage) such that they are unlikely to be suitable for retention beyond 40 years Trees present in numbers usually as groups or woodlands, such that they form distinct landscape features thereby attracting a higher collective rating than they might as individuals, or trees occurring as collectives but situated to make little visual contribution to the wider locality. Trees with measurable conservation or cultural value Category C Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm Unremarkable trees of very limited merit or such impaired condition that they do not qualify in higher categories Trees present in groups or woodlands, but without this conferring on them significantly greater collective landscape value and/or trees offering low or only temporary/transient landscape benefits. Trees with very limited conservation or cultural value Page 81
Page 82
101071_01 - Visual Tree Assessment Linton, Lineside Walk, Rhu Page 13 of 13 Appendix 4. VTA SURVEY SCHEDULE KEY Tree Number Tag number attached to the tree and presented on tree survey plans. Species (Scientific name) Common name and botanical name of tree species. Where precise species identification was not ascertained, genus is given. Height (m) Approximate height of the tree given in meters. Stem Diameter (mm) Diameter of the main stem(s) given in millimetres and taken 1.5m above ground level. Crown Spread (m) Directional branch spreads estimated in meters to provide a representative crown shape. Age Class YO - Young, EM - Early Mature, MA - Mature, V - Veteran. Condition An overall assessment of the trees physiological and structural condition. G- Good, F- Fair, P- Poor General observations A brief description of the tree. Management Recommendations Recommendations for arboricultural works. Estimated Remaining Contribution An estimation of the safe / useful life expectancy of the tree. BS5837 Category The quality category given to a tree in line with BS5837:2012 tree quality assessment. Page 82
Page 83
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE Development and Economic Growth 22nd January 2025 Development Management Performance Update – FQ3 2024/25 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report provides an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FQ3 2024/25. 1.2 The attached document Appendix 1 provides an overview of the current demands upon the Development Management Service, its output during this period, the handling of the current backlog of casework, and the average time taken to determine planning applications. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that PPSL: (a) Review and note the content of the report. 3.0 DETAIL & BACKGROUND 3.1 The performance of the Council’s Development Management Service has been significantly impacted by the legacy effect of the Covid Pandemic upon interruption to workflow and a subsequent increase in demand for regulatory activity relating to new development. This situation has been exacerbated by the Service having previously been down-sized in response to the longer-term wider financial pressures facing the Council combined with a number of long-term vacancies that proved extremely difficult to fill as a result of a national shortage of planning professionals. The determination of planning applications has also been impacted by the uncertainty created by a changing planning policy backdrop with the Scottish Government’s adoption of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) in February 2023 with minimal transition arrangements having had a noticeable adverse impact on FQ4 2022/23 output as a result of a significant volume of casework requiring to be reassessed prior to its determination. The cumulative effect of these extraordinary pressures has given rise to a significant backlog of planning casework that continues to impact upon the ability of the Council to deliver the Development Management Service in an efficient and effective manner at this time, and impacts upon customer service. At FQ4 2022/23 the backlog of applications amounted to approximately 375 formal applications and 175 pre-application enquiries. Page 83 Agenda Item 6
Page 84
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.2 An Improvement Action Plan (IAP) was prepared in early 2023 in response to the significant decrease in performance and wider issues impacting upon the resourcing of the service and its interactions with customers. The implementation of the IAP has ensured the delivery of additional capacity within the Development Management Service and along with this improvement initially in terms of output and more latterly improving trends are also now able to be identified in relation to the making of timely determinations. Building upon the foundation of the IAP, the Development Management Service Plan and Development Management Charter approved by PPSL on 18th September 2024 set out updated performance targets for the Service. These include a wider range of measures that seek to demonstrate the delivery of individual elements of the IAP and in addition to timeliness include measures which can be utilised to measure customer satisfaction, and staff welfare. Updated back office procedures are required to efficiently collect the data required for reporting on the enhanced range of measures and it is intended that these will be in place by the end of 2024/25. 3.3 DEMAND: The Development Management Service receive approximately 2000 planning and related application case work items on an annual basis. The Development Management Service is resourced with the expectation that demand will be relatively constant and steady throughout the year. Whilst the volume of new submissions decreased by approximately 10% during 2020/21 they had returned to and exceeded pre-pandemic levels during 2021/22. Submission rates have subsequently been maintained at a high level and during 2022/23 were 5% up on pre-pandemic levels. Appendix 1, Sheet 1 shows that whilst submission rates continued to show an increase in demand during FQ1 2024/25 this has decreased slightly during FQ2 and FQ3. 3.4 The resource constraints and performance of the Development Management Service have been highlighted at a senior level within the Council and continue to be subject to regular reporting to Policy Leads/ELT. An improving financial position following the reform of statutory planning fees by the Scottish Government in April 2022 has supported the creation of 3 new professional officer posts that provide additional capacity within the Service. During FQ3 2024/25 the DM Service has largely operated with a full staff compliment but has continued to be impacted by unplanned absence, including the impact of work related stress. In an effort to make further inroads in the backlog of casework, an additional two agency staff have been retained to augment the MAKI and BCHL teams with funding now identified through until the end of the financial year 2024/25 as a means of supporting existing staff with health and performance issues and improving productivity. The use of temporary staff resource to provide additional capacity has had a significant positive impact and has enabled the team to reduce the volume of ‘live’ applications by over 40% in a period of 16 months with the number of live applications reducing from 852 in Sept. 2023 to 508 by end of Dec 2024. 3.5 OUTPUT: The positive impact of the increased availability of professional officer resource within the DM Service has however been evident with the continued delivery of above average output demonstrated since FQ1 2023/24. Output for the most recent reporting period, FQ3 2024/25 maintains a period of excellent Page 84
Page 85
Classification: OFFICIAL performance. (Appendix 1, Sheet 2). 3.6 Improving output also means that the Service is now making significant inroads in addressing the outstanding casework backlog (Appendix 1, Sheet 3). At the end of FQ3 2024/25 the identified backlog of formal casework had reduced to a negligible level. 3.7 PRE-APPLICATION ENQUIRIES: Demand for pre-application advice remains high, particularly following the adoption of LDP2 in February 2024. Pre-application turnover is currently on track and that only a neglible backlog of enquiries (less than 10) has been accrued over the period extending from FQ1 2021/22. Performance during FQ3 has also been boosted by improved output. A commitment has been provided to review and improve the pre-application process, this will include the provision of enhanced information on the Council website to allow a greater proportion of customers to ‘self-serve’; development and roll out of a new pre-application service has been identified as a priority project for 2025. 3.8 ‘HOUSEHOLDER’ DEVELOPMENT: The performance of the Development Management Service is also measured in terms of the time taken to determine applications as it is recognised that failure to provide timely decisions can create uncertainty and be detrimental to the delivery of development across the Council area. Overall ‘time-taken’ measures are however currently skewed by the determination of a high volume of older ‘legacy’ applications that have accrued as part of the planning backlog. The increasing proportion of older applications being determined from FQ3 2022/23 onwards is identified in the bar graphs that provide a breakdown of application age within the average time measures (Appendix 1, Sheet 5 and Sheet 6) and demonstrate that ‘legacy’ applications are successfully being targeted for determination. FQ3 has seen 2 ‘legacy’ ‘householder’ items determined leaving only 3 more ‘legacy’ cases at the time of writing and an expectation that this should be expected to deliver continuous improvement to the overall time measures moving forward. 3.9 The increasing focus on ‘legacy’ applications continues to have significant consequence for average time performance measures as the determination of a relatively small number of older applications significantly impacts upon these KPIs. This is particularly evident within the ‘householder’ average time measure (Appendix 1, Sheet 5) where despite 88% of all householder determinations being determined in an average time of 10.1 weeks this measure is significantly impacted by the determination of just 2 older applications that have cumulatively added nearly 3.3 weeks to the average time period for determination of this KPI. The overall reduction in ‘legacy’ items has however allowed for improvement of the headline KPI from 26.1 weeks in FQ 2 to 15.9 weeks in FQ3. It is also highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. During FQ3 the Council determined a number of legacy applications which have impacted on the raw data relating to the average time period, including items that were delayed largely due to matters outwith the control of the Council. Whilst the data sets are Page 85
Page 86
Classification: OFFICIAL not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the national average for householder applications at FQ4 2023/24 was 8.6 weeks. 3.10 ‘LOCAL’ DEVELOPMENT: The determination of ‘legacy’ applications had a similar impact upon the average time taken measure applied to all other ‘local’ planning applications (Appendix 1, Sheet 6) where the determination of 29 ‘legacy’ applications cumulatively add 14.2 weeks to an average time measure that reports on the determination of 155 applications in total. During FQ3 2024/25 81% of all other ‘local’ applications determined were less than 1 year old at the time of their determination and were determined in an average of 17.0 weeks (previously 75% in 16.3 weeks at FQ2). 67% of the total were less than 6 months old and determined in 12.7 weeks on average (previously 60% in 11.5 weeks in FQ2). The average time taken to determine ‘all other local applications’ has improved during FQ3 from 37.8 weeks to 31.2 weeks. It is also highlighted that this position relates to ‘raw’ data and does not factor in delays which have arisen as a result of matters outwith the control of the Council, or applications that have been subject to processing agreements. During FQ3 the Council determined a number of legacy applications which have impacted on the raw data relating to the average time period, including items that were delayed largely due to matters outwith the control of the Council. Whilst the data sets are not directly comparable it is still helpful to reference the SG Returns as a benchmark. In this respect the national average for local applications (excluding householder) at FQ4 2023/24 was 16.8 weeks. 3.11 CONCLUSION: The backlog of planning casework (Appendix 1, Sheet 3) at the end of FQ2 has reduced by a further 72 formal applications (reduced from 80 to 8 applications). Whilst this is an improving position it is highlighted that the determination of legacy items will continue to impact upon performance over an extended period throughout 2024/25. Whilst the determination of legacy items will continue to impact upon performance reporting for some time to come, analysis of the granular data shows that average time periods for determining applications are now starting to reduce and that despite headline figures that might raise alarm, the majority of applications continue to be processed within much faster timescales that are showing improvement over time and which are moving toward the target of being within 10% of the national average. Improving performance also underlines the importance of ensuring that the Development Management Service is adequately resourced as improved efficiency in the handling of applications has been attained through the reduction in individual officer’s caseloads to manageable levels with limited exceptions. 4.0 IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Policy None 4.2 Financial None 4.3 Legal None 4.4 HR None 4.5 Fairer Scotland Duty Page 86
Page 87
Classification: OFFICIAL 4.5.1 Equalities – Protected Characteristics None 4.5.2 Socio-economic Duty None 4.5.3 Islands None 4.6 Climate Change None 4.7 Risk Failure to determine planning and related applications in efficient and effective manner would have potential to adversely impact upon the local economy, delivery of housing, and health and wellbeing of individuals. 4.8 Customer Service Requirement to manage customer expectations in the determination planning and related applications 4.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) None Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead: Cllr Kieron Green 10th January 2025 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – FQ3 2024/25 DM report to ELT Page 87
Page 88
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 89
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Statutory 517 478 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 2012 75.9% 1982 76.1% 1751 74.3% 1304 77.0% Non-Statutory 5 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 56 2.1% 51 2.0% 87 3.7% 59 3.5% PREAPP 136 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 582 22.0% 570 21.9% 520 22.1% 330 19.5% Totals 658 656 651 685 674 607 643 679 594 631 549 584 602 549 542 2650 2603 2358 1693 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework received. YTD as at 31st December 2024 data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The data set covers the last 15 financial quarters and confirms that demand for the determination of planning applications and other statutory activity of the Council as the Planning Authority remains high and relatively constant in its volume. End Dec 2024: Submission rates remain within expected parameters at this time. FY24/25 YTD Split of Casework ReceivedNew Casework Received FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 This tab provides information on the volume of DM case work received by financial quarter and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non-statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. 517 478 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 412 5 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 23 136 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 107 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Volume of New Casework Received PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 77.0% 3.5% 19.5% Split of Casework Received: FY24/25 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Appendix 1 Page 89
Page 90
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Statutory 410 411 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 1610 72.4% 1549 74.5% 1778 75.1% 1355 76.9% Non-Statutory 12 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 46 2.1% 33 1.6% 75 3.2% 63 3.6% PREAPP 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 568 25.5% 496 23.9% 513 21.7% 343 19.5% 2224 2078 2366 1761 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework closed. data source = UNIform (Access queries) YTD as at 31st December 2024 This tab provides detail on the volume of DM casework that has been closed and includes a breakdown between statutory items (planning and related applications), non-statutory items (consultations from other regulatory bodies), and pre-application enquiries. The data set covers the last 15 financial quarters and demsonstrates that regardless of performance issues in respect of timeliness output remains high. There has been a notable improvement in productivity from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the increasing availability of officer resource and a more settled position following the significant disruption to workflow arising from NPF4 (FQ4 2022/23); this improving position has continued into FQ1 2024/25. End Dec 2024: Productivity during FQ1 and FQ2 has been excellent and builds on the improved performance seen across 2023/24. Output during FQ3 to date is also at an acceptable level. Commentary: FY21/22 FY22/23 FY23/24 Casework Closed FY24/25 YTD Split of Casework Closed 410 411 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 427 12 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 15 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Volume of Casework Closed PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 76.9% 3.6% 19.5% Split of Casework Closed: FY24/25 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Page 90
Page 91
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Closed 422 423 402 409 419 377 407 379 495 439 479 440 481 495 442 Validated 405 460 438 450 462 455 436 509 462 428 366 428 425 425 370 Difference (no) 17 -37 -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 This data is unfiltered - it shows the number of cases closed vs number of cases validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Casework Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new statutory and non-statutory casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of applications that have accrued since FQ1 2021/22. Commentary: The graph shows that after 7 financial quarters (FQ2 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23) where output was lower than input, a backlog of 375 casework items were accumulated. During this period the DM Service were impacted by Covid restrictions/recovery and required to operate with a number of key vacancies due to a national shortage of planning professionals. Improving performance during 2023/24 has however reduced the backlog at the end of that period to 206 items. As significant improvement in performance is evident from FQ1 2023/24 which corresponds with the resolution of key staffing issues within the Service, this improving position has been maintained moving forward from that point and throughout 2024/25 to date. End Dec 2024: The backlog of casework has reduced further during FQ3 to date by a further 30 items. The overall scale of the task in addressing the casework backlog continues to highlight that whilst the permanent staff resource is adequate to meet 'normal' demand, additional professional officer resource is required where this is exceeded. The use of additional temporary staff has supported a reduction in the 'live' caselist from 852 items in Sept 2023 to 508 at the end of Dec. 2024 - this equates to a 40% reduction in 'live' applications and is an indicator that caseload demands are now close to a level which the the DM Service is ordinarily resourced to manage. 17 -37 -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 72 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 -400 -350 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 Casework Turnover Rate Page 91
Page 92
Classification: OFFICIAL# Volumes FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Closed 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 115 Validated 129 162 118 153 159 137 117 140 117 132 120 130 115 92 103 Difference (no) 5 10 -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 Number of PREAPP's closed vs number of PREAPP's validated. data source = UNIform (Access queries) PREAPP Turnover - Volume This tab shows a comparison between the volume of new pre-application casework and output per financial quarter. The Y axis has been formatted to track the cumulative backlog of pre-application enquiries that have accrued since FQ1 2021/22. Commentary: The Graph shows the accumulation of a backlog of pre- application enquiries over the period FQ3 2021/22 - FQ4 2022/23 during a period where the DM Service operated with a number of key vacancies and has experienced significant workflow disruption with the introduction of NPF4. It had previously been identified that the backlog amounted to around 180 applications; however following a review of the data input and accuracy of the data available (see detail of correction below) it has become evident that earlier reports included cases that were invalid and cases that had not been closed off proprerly in the back office system. The updated report confirms that the backlog of pre-application enquiries reached a maximum of just over 50 items; this position has seen significant improvement. End Dec 2024: The backlog of pre-apps is currently neglibible with new submissions being turned over on a regular and timely basis. Work remains ongoing to review and improve the pre-application advice service. 5 10 -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 12 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 PREAPP Turnover Rate Page 92
Page 93
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 < 6 months 8.5 9.7 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 < 6 months 87 80 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 < 1 year 9.1 9.7 10.8 13.3 12.4 12.4 12.0 17.3 17.8 15.4 14.6 18.3 12.4 12.6 12.6 6 months - 1 year 2 0 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 < 2 years 9.1 9.7 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 18.5 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 19.0 13.5 1 - 2 years 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 All Determined 9.1 9.7 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 Over 2 years 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 1 Total 89 80 94 88 76 76 86 62 59 83 75 75 60 75 59 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Householder" = Development Type N01. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' casework and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service from FQ1 2023/24 to move from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a high volume of 'legacy' applications continue to be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of performance across FQ4 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from reporting to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Peformance from FQ1 2024/25 has shown a marked improvement with the majority of householder applications now being determined in much shorter time periods. End Dec 2024: During FQ3, 2 'legacy' items have been determined with a consequent adverse impact of 3.3 weeks on the headline KPI. It is noted that this outcome demonstrates the significant adverse impact that the determination of a small number of older items has had upon average time reporting measures. At the time of writing only 3 'legacy' householder items remain to be determined. During FQ3 Householder Applications have been determined in an average of 15.9 weeks (improvement from 26.1 weeks in FQ2 24/25). The underlying performance on the larger volume of newer applications determined is much healthier; in this respect it is highlighted that more applications are being determined at an early stage with 88% of all householder applications in FQ3 were newer items determined in an average time of 10.1 weeks (previously 75% in 9.6 weeks during FQ2 24/25). Average Time to Determine Applications: Householder ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Householder - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Householder Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'householder' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 8.5 9.7 10.6 10.8 10.9 10.2 11.0 13.3 11.8 11.6 11.8 12.0 9.6 9.6 10.1 12.6 13.5 9.1 9.7 11.8 13.8 12.4 13.1 12.0 17.3 21.6 18.1 16.8 20.0 16.1 26.1 15.9 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Average no. of weeks to determine: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months < 1 year < 2 years All Determined 87 80 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 52 2 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 5 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 1 2 4 1 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 % Split: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 93
Page 94
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 < 6 months 10.8 11.3 11.1 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 < 6 months 158 142 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 < 1 year 12.7 14.1 13.5 13.4 14.5 14.0 18.0 19.2 19.3 18.7 18.8 21.0 19.0 16.3 17.0 6 months - 1 year 12 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 < 2 years 14.6 15.3 13.9 14.2 15.7 16.1 19.9 23.6 21.9 25.0 25.8 29.3 26.1 24.5 25.6 1 - 2 years 6 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 All Determined 14.6 16.7 18.5 16.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 Over 2 years 0 2 4 3 1 1 0 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 Total 176 167 136 141 132 136 153 105 129 156 155 144 163 176 155 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Local (excluding Householder)" = Development Types N02B/C, N03B/C, N04B/C, N05B/C, N06B/C, N07B/C, N08B/C, N09B/C, N10B/C. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service is to move during 2023/24 from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a higher volume of 'legacy' applications will be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of overall average time performance measures from FQ2 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from considerations to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework that has been determined. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Performance during FQ1 2024/25 has markedly improved and appears to indicate the start of an improving trend with decreasing time periods. End Dec 2024: FQ3 has seen 29 legacy applications cleared with the effect of adding 14.2 weeks to the overall average time measure which now sits at 31.2 weeks (improvement from 37.8 weeks in FQ2 2024/25). It is highlighted that the volume of legacy determinations has come as a result of significant progress in clearing the backlog of applications and, depist the significant adverse impact on average time measures, is a noteable achievement. It is also noted that some of the negative impact is attributed to delays to determination which were outwith the control of the planning authority and which will be adjusted in statutory reporting by the Scottish Government. Discounting the effect of legacy cases it is however evident that performance overall is continuing to show improvement. During FQ3 the determination of non-legacy local applications were undertaken in an average of 17.0 weeks (slight increase from 16.3 weeks in FQ2 24/25). It is also highlighted that more applications are being determined at an early stage with 67% of all local applications in FQ3 were newer items determined in an average time of 12.7 weeks (previously 60% in 11.5 weeks in FQ2 2024/25). Average Time to Determine Applications: Local (Excluding Householder) ( <6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) Volume of Applications Determined: Local (Excluding Householder) - Time Taken The Average Time Taken to Determine Local (excluding Householder) Planning Applications This tab provides detail on the average time taken to determine 'local' planning applications, this is based on raw data which does not take into account any delays that might arise from matters outwith the control of the planning authority. 10.8 11.3 11.1 11.5 12.4 10.1 10.2 12.9 13.5 14.0 12.7 12.1 11.6 11.5 12.7 12.7 17.014.6 25.6 14.6 16.7 18.5 16.7 16.8 17.0 19.9 24.5 27.6 27.4 30.2 33.4 30.0 37.8 31.2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 Ave no. of weeks to determine: Local (Excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) 158 142 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 104 12 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 22 6 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 22 2 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 7 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 % Split: Local (excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 94