Agenda reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 20 November 2024
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 20 November 2024 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 Ghaidheal agus Bhoid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 13 November 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held in the BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2024 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend. Douglas Hendry Executive Director BUSINESS 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 23 October 2024 at 11.00 am (Pages 5 - 26) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 23 October 2024 at 2.30 pm (Pages 27 - 28) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 23 October 2024 at 3.30 pm (Pages 29 - 30) 4. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: TAXI SURVEY (Pages 31 - 34) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support 5. THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT: SECTION 36 CONSULTATION FOR ERECTION OF 13 WIND 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) (Pages 35 - 78) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 6. MR GERALD BIAGI: CHANGE OF USE FROM YARD (SUI GENERIS) TO CLASS 5 TO CREATE A NEW COMMERCIAL GARAGE: LAND BEHIND VIEWFIELD, MAIN ROAD, CARDROSS (REF: 24/00462/PP) (Pages 79 - 98) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
7. MR CALLUM MCKIRDY: ERECTION OF DRY STORAGE SHED WITHIN EXISTING YARD, FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS ROUTE FROM WATSON PLACE, ERECTION OF PERIMETER FENCING AND CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO EXTEND EXISTING YARD (PART RETROSPECTIVE): 22A WYNDHAM ROAD, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE (REF: 24/00465/PP) (Pages 99 - 126) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 8. 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 127 - 150) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 9. SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION: SCOTTISH BUILDING SAFETY LEVY (Pages 151 - 160) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 10. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ2 2024/25 (Pages 161 - 172) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORT FOR NOTING 11. PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL AND BUTE (Pages 173 - 178) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support EXEMPT REPORT FOR DECISION E1 12. REQUEST FOR A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (Pages 179 - 186) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is:- E1 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine
Page 3
Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
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 WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Susan Mair, Legal Manager Alan Morrison, Regulatory Services and Building Standards Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Tim Williams, Area Team Leader – Oban, Lorn and the Isles David Moore, Senior Planning Officer Stuart Ramsey, Senior Planning Officer Shelley Gould, Senior Planning Officer Emma Shaw, Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Fiona Howard, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Dougie Philand. 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 18 September 2024 at 10.30 am was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 September 2024 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 September 2024 at 3.00 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 18 September 2024 at 4.00 pm was approved as a correct record. e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 20 September 2024 was approved as a correct record. Page 5 Agenda Item 3a
Page 6
4. 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. The fares were last reviewed by Members on 21 June 2023 and took effect on 22 October 2023. The next fare scale will need to come into force in April 2025. Consideration was given to a report seeking approval of the commencement of the next review of taxi fares and other charges. Decision The Committee agreed:- 1. to commence the review of fares in order that this could be completed within the 18 months required in terms of the Act; and 2. that the consultation required in terms of the Act would be in writing. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support dated 23 October 2024, submitted) 5. TORLOISK ESTATE: CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF STONE BARN TO FORM DWELLINGHOUSE, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC TANK AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS: LAND WEST OF LAGGANULVA FARM, ULVA FERRY, ISLE OF MULL (REF: 23/00185/PP) This application was presented to the PPSL Committee on 22 May 2024 and the Committee agreed to request from Planning Officers information on what the impact this proposed development would have on access to, and operation of, the remaining agricultural land in terms of Policy 83 of LDP2 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft land. Supplementary report number 5 advised of late representations received and provided an update on the submission of the further information requested. The Planning Officer advised that following publication of this supplementary report a late representation was received from the tenant farmer regarding the agricultural report submitted by the Applicant. A late email was also received from Councillor Hume requesting that the Committee undertake a site inspection. It was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in supplementary report number 5 which included an amendment to condition 15 to allow for increased flexibility for an alternative scheme for the provision of the replacement barn, and an additional condition to secure the exact details of the residential curtilage. Decision The Committee noted the content of supplementary report number 5, which provided further detailed assessment of the proposed development in relation to NPF4 Policy 5 and LDP2 Policy 83, and agreed to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions and reasons: Page 6
Page 7
Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 01.02.2023, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Existing Drawings 1 (downtakings in red) PL_003 02.02.2023 Existing Drawings 2 (downtakings in red) PL_004 02.02.2023 Proposed Elevations PL_008 02.02.2023 Proposed Plan PL_006 02.02.2023 Proposed Section A-A South Elevation and Section B-B PL_007 02.02.2023 Proposed Renders PL_009 02.02.2023 Proposed Interior Renders PL_010 02.02.2023 Existing Site Plan PL_002 27.02.2023 Proposed Site Plan PL_005 27.02.2023 Proposed Plan PL_006 27.02.2023 Location Plan PL_001 27.02.2023 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. Timescale to be Agreed for Completion No development shall commence until details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved timescale for completion unless an alternative timescale for completion is otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Page 7
Page 8
Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 3. Sustainable Drainage System Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, the development shall incorporate a surface water drainage system which is consistent with the principles of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with the guidance set out in CIRIA’s SuDS Manual C753 and Sewers for Scotland 4th Edition. The requisite surface water drainage shall be operational prior to the development being brought into use and shall be maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: Further advice on SuDS can be found in SEPA’s Standing Advice for Small Scale Development – www.sepa.org.uk . 4. Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement No development shall commence until a scheme of biodiversity protection and enhancement, boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: i) Location, design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; ii) Surface treatment of proposed means of access and hardstanding areas; iii) Any proposed re-contouring of the site by means of existing and proposed ground levels; iv) Proposed hard and soft landscape works; and v) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. The development shall not be occupied until such time as the physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc), the boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. All biodiversity enhancement measures consisting of new or enhanced planting shall be undertaken either in accordance with the approved scheme of implementation or within the next available planting season following the development first being brought into use. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme during the first planting season following the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 8
Page 9
The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity. 5. Junction with Public Road Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/004a and shall include visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 75 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access. The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to Applicant: • A Road Opening Permit under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 must be obtained from the Council’s Roads Engineers prior to the formation/alteration of a junction with the public road. The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. 6. Parking and Turning As Shown The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development first being occupied and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 7. Private Water Supply No development shall commence until an appraisal of the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the intended private water supply and the system required to serve the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The appraisal shall be carried out by a qualified hydrologist and shall include a risk assessment having regard to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 which shall inform the design of the system by which a wholesome and sufficient water supply shall be provided and maintained. The appraisal shall also demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of any other Page 9
Page 10
supply in the vicinity of the development, or any other person utilising the same source or supply, shall not be compromised by the proposed development. The development shall not be brought into use or occupied until the required water supply system has been installed in accordance with the agreed specification and is operational. Reason: In the interests of public health and in order to ensure that an adequate private water supply in terms of both wholesomeness and sufficiency can be provided to meet the requirements of the proposed development and without compromising the interests of other users of the same or nearby private water supplies. Note to Applicant: Regulatory requirements for private water supplies should be discussed with the Council’s Environmental Health Officers in the first instance. 8. Submission of Details of Materials Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until written details of the type and colour of materials to be used in the construction of the roof coverings and external walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed using the approved materials or such alternatives as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings. 9. PP - Removal of PD Rights – Dwellinghouse Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended), (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order(s) with or without modifications), nothing in Article 2(4) of or the Schedule to that Order, shall operate so as to permit, within the area subject of this permission, any development referred to in Part 1 and Classes 1A, 1B, 1D, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below: PART 1: DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF A DWELLINGHOUSE Class 1A: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a single storey ground floor extension, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. Class 1B: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of a ground floor extension consisting of more than one storey, including any alteration to the roof required for the purpose of the enlargement. Class 1D: Any enlargement of a dwellinghouse by way of an addition or alteration to its roof. Class 2B: Any improvement, addition or other alteration to the external appearance of a dwellinghouse that is not an enlargement. Page 10
Page 11
Class 3A: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a building for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the alteration, maintenance or improvement of such a building. Class 3B: The carrying out of any building, engineering, installation or other operation within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Class 3C: The provision within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse of a hard surface for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse or the replacement in whole or in part of such a surface. Class 3D: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any deck or other raised platform within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwellinghouse. Class 3E: The erection, construction, maintenance, improvement or alteration of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure any part of which would be within or would bound the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. No such development shall be carried out at any time within this Part and these Classes without the express grant of planning permission. Reason: To maintain the integrity and architectural value of this bespoke dwellinghouse and to protect it and its immediate setting against inharmonious additions and accretions and to protect the sensitive area and the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse in the interest of visual amenity and public health, from unsympathetic siting and design of developments normally carried out without planning permission; these normally being permitted under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). 10. Pre-commencement Survey No development or other work shall be carried out on the site until a pre- commencement survey for the presence of nesting birds has been carried out by an appropriately qualified person and has been submitted for the written approval of the Planning Authority. In circumstances where species of interest are identified as being present, or at risk from construction works, the survey shall further provide suggested avoidance and or mitigation measures, including timing constraints, to address such presence or risk. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the measures identified in the duly approved scheme. Reason: In order to establish that the circumstances of the site have not changed significantly between approval and implementation of the development for the purpose of protecting natural heritage assets in the interest of nature conservation. 11. Implement/Operate Development in Accordance with Identified Mitigation Measures Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures set out in the documents titled ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal’ dated August 2022 and ‘Otter & Bat Surveys Report’ dated September 2022. Page 11
Page 12
Reason: In order to protect natural heritage assets in the interest of nature conservation. 12. Contaminated Land Unless otherwise agreed in writing and in advance by the Planning Authority, prior to any development commencing on site, a scheme will be submitted by the Developer (at their expense) to identify and assess potential contamination on site. No construction work shall commence until the scheme has been submitted to, and approved, by the Planning Authority, and is thereafter implemented in accordance with the scheme so approved. The scheme shall be undertaken by a competent person or persons in accordance with relevant authoritative guidance including PAN 33 (2000) and BS10175:2011 or, in the event of these being superseded or supplemented, the most up-to-date version(s) of any subsequent revision(s) of, and/or supplement(s) to, these documents. This scheme should contain details of proposals to investigate and remediate potential contamination to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and must include:- a) A desk study and development of a conceptual site model including (where necessary) a detailed site investigation strategy. The desk study and the scope and method of recommended further investigations shall be agreed with the Council prior to addressing parts b, c, and d of this condition. Should the desk study show the need for further assessment this will be undertaken in the following sequence: b) A detailed investigation of the nature and extent of contamination on site, and assessment of the risks such contamination presents. c) Development and agreement of a remedial strategy (if required) to treat/ remove contamination ensuring the site is made suitable for its proposed use (this shall include a method statement, programme of works, and proposed verification plan). d) Submission of a verification report for any agreed remedial actions detailing and evidencing the completion of these works. Written confirmation from the Planning Authority, that the scheme has been implemented and completed shall be required by the Developer before any development hereby approved commences. Where remedial measures are required as part of the development construction detail, commencement must be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the potential risks to human health, the water environment, property, and, ecological systems arising from any identified land contamination have been adequately addressed. Page 12
Page 13
13. Tree Retention and Protection No development shall commence until a scheme for the retention and safeguarding of trees during construction has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise: i) Details of all trees to be removed and the location and canopy spread of trees to be retained as part of the development; ii) A programme of measures for the protection of trees during construction works which shall include fencing at least one metre beyond the canopy spread of each tree in accordance with BS 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction”. Tree protection measures shall be implemented for the full duration of construction works in accordance with the duly approved scheme. No trees shall be lopped, topped or felled other than in accordance with the details of the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to retain trees as part of the development in the interests of amenity and nature conservation. 14. Phasing of Development No development shall commence until such time as the associated replacement agricultural building (either as granted under prior notification ref. 24/00259/PNAGRI; or subsequently renewed/amended, or an alternative scheme for the provision of a replacement building that has been acknowledged as such in writing by the planning authority) has been erected and made available for agricultural use in the management of Lagganulva Farm. Reason: In order to ensure that the development of the existing barn the subject of this current planning permission is delivered in accordance with the stated management and development of the remainder of the agricultural holding. 15. Restricted Curtilage No development shall commence until details of a reduced residential curtilage for the proposed dwellinghouse has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be completed in strict accordance with such details as are approved. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal and to safeguard agricultural land. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 3 October 2024, submitted) Page 13
Page 14
6. YLEM ENERGY LTD: CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM (BESS) WITH ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE: ARDENCAPLE FARM, RHU, HELENSBURGH (REF: 23/02472/PP) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The proposed site is located at Ardencaple Farm, approximately 1km North East of Rhu on approximately 0.5ha of agricultural land currently used for pasture. The application site is situated within the Helensburgh Green Belt where stricter controls over the type of development which is allowed is exercised as per LDP2 Policy 02 and NPF4 Policy 8. The purpose of the proposed development would be to install a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) which would provide standby, emergency electricity for National Grid in times of high electricity demand or when renewable energy projects are unable to fulfil demand. This application has attracted 62 letters of objection and, in addition, both Helensburgh and Rhu and Shandon Community Councils have objected. Whilst there is strong policy support within NPF4 Policy 11 and LDP2 Policy 30 for energy related proposals such as this BESS scheme, Officers consider there are three reasons for refusal of this application relating to the lack of justification for this greenbelt location and the adverse landscape and visual impacts on the greenbelt, the lack of a suitable vehicular access to the site, and insufficient information relation to noise impacts. It is considered that Members have sufficient information within the report to enable them to determine this application and, in these circumstances, it is not considered that a pre- determination hearing would add value to the process. It was recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: 1. Unacceptable Adverse Impact on Helensburgh Green Belt. The proposed development by nature of its scale, appearance and location More particularly, a) The application submission has failed to demonstrate that a greenbelt location is essential for the location of the development due to the exclusion of all greenfield land within the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Area at an early stage in the site search exercise. This has resulted in the identification of a site, within a sensitive greenbelt location some 2.7km from the required substation connection point on the edge of the settlement of Helensburgh. Officers therefore consider insufficient justification to locate the development within the Helensburgh Greenbelt has been provided by the applicant. b) In addition, the field within which the development is proposed to be located, forms an integral and important part of the greenbelt in framing the settlement of Page 14
Page 15
Helensburgh and providing an open context for attractive and important views of the town and beyond to the Clyde Estuary. Officers consider the quality of this view to be extremely high and therefore its sensitivity to adverse impact is also high. The proposed development would unacceptably undermine the function and openness of the greenbelt at this point by introducing industrial scale development. By nature of the above matters set out at (a) and (b) the proposal is considered to be contrary to NPF4 Policy 8 and LDP2 Policy 02. 2. Substandard Access Roads and Site Access Road for Emergency Service Vehicles The application fails to provide either a private access road to the site, or an access track within the site to the BESS facility to an acceptable and safe standard for emergency services access. The Area Roads Engineer considers that the proposed access arrangements are unacceptable due to the unsatisfactory intervisibility and width of the private access road to the site, and unacceptable gradients on the proposed internal access road within the site contrary to LDP2 Policies 35, 37 and 39 of Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. In addition, the proposed access arrangements fail to meet the desired guidelines and standards of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services to access such facilities as set out in their consultation response to this application. More particularly the proposals fail to provide at least two separate access points to the site to account for opposite wind conditions/directions, a perimeter road or roads with passing places for fire service vehicles to an adequate standard, or access arrangements with no extremes of gradient. 3. Noise Generation and Potential Amenity Impacts The submitted noise report fails to provide sufficient confidence to Environmental Protection Officers that there will not be any adverse noise Impacts on surrounding area which includes residential properties. Adequate details have not been provided within the submitted Noise Impact Assessment. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to LDP2 Policy 14 amenity safeguarding objectives in respect of potential noise impacts. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 9 October 2024, submitted) 7. SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC: SECTION 42 APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF CONDITION 11 RELATIVE TO PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 22/00782/PP (TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 132/275 KILOVOLT (KV) GIS SUBSTATION AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL CONNECT THE EXISTING 132 KV OVERHEAD LINE (OHL) FROM TAYNUILT TO INVERARAY TO A PROPOSED 275 KV OHL TO DALMALLY: LAND APPROXIMATELY 2.5 KM SOUTHWEST OF CLADICH (REF: 24/00260/PP) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. A Section 42 application is an application for a new planning permission for a development but with different conditions from those attached to a previous permission for the same development. In determining such an application, the Planning Authority can only consider the changes to Page 15
Page 16
the conditions on the previous permission. The principle of development is not under consideration and the original permission remains live. The Application only requires to be considered by the Committee as it is a national development. The Applicant wishes to delete a planning condition (Condition 11) attached to the original consent 22/00728/PP), requiring the finished floor levels (FFLs) of all the previously approved buildings on the site are elevated 0.3 metres above the surrounding ground levels. This requirement was added as a planning condition following a consultation response received from the Flood Risk Management Adviser. Following consultation on the current application, the Flood Risk Management Adviser has stated that as the raised of the FFLs by 0.3 metres was only a recommendation on the original application, they have no objections to the removal/deletion of the actual condition. Officers consider it acceptable to delete planning condition 11 from the original consent, subject to the retention and amendment of the remaining planning conditions, it was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons set out in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission, in accordance with Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 09/02/2024, supporting information, including the Environmental Appraisal for application 22/00782/PP (April 2022), and the approved drawings listed in the table below, unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan R170_3673_Fig1_1_RedlineBoundarySite_C C 12/02/24 Proposed A819 Site Access Design Location Plan LT29_CRDH_0804_0010 B 12/02/24 Location of septic tank, borehole R170_3673_Fig1_SepticTank_BHWS_SUDS_D D 12/02/24 Page 16
Page 17
water supply and SUDS Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved Finalised Construction Environmental Management Document (CEMD) for the site, as approved under application 22/00782/PP, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure protection of surrounding environmental interests and general amenity. 3. The development shall be implemented and proceed in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and Phased Delivery Plan, as approved under application 22/00782/PP. Reason: To minimise interference with the safety and free flow of the traffic on the trunk road, to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cycle users using the trunk road and adjacent facilities and to be consistent with current guidance and best practice. 4. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details of the proposed archaeological works contained with the approved written scheme of investigation, with the suitably qualified person being afforded access at all reasonable times during ground disturbance works. Reason: In order to protect archaeological resources. 5. Prior to the end of February 2025, further details of a continuing strategy for housing incoming construction workers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall continue to be carried out in accordance with the further approved details submitted and approved. Reason: In order to ensure that any potential adverse impacts on the functioning of the local housing market and tourist accommodation to the detriment of the interests of the local community are identified and mitigated in accordance with the requirements of NPF4, and in particular Policy 11C and Policy 25 Objectives. 6. The development shall not be brought into use or occupied until the required private water supply system has been installed in accordance with the agreed specification, as approved under application 22/00782/PP, and is operational. Reason: In the interests of public health and in order to ensure that an adequate private water supply in terms of both wholesomeness and sufficiency can be provided to meet the requirements of the proposed development and without compromising the interests of other users of the same or nearby private water supplies. 7. The development shall progress in accordance with the approved Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP), as approved under application 22/00782/PP, with all Page 17
Page 18
approved mitigation measures to be in place prior to the commencement of development, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of safeguarding residential amenity. 8. The development shall progress in accordance with the approved Peat Management Plan (PMP), as approved under application 22/00782/PP. Reason: In order to minimise disturbance of peat and ensure the appropriate reuse and management of peat. 9. Prior to the energising of the development hereby approved, a detailed Compensatory Planting Plan (CPP) and Long Term Forestry Management Plan (LTFMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Forestry. The approved CPP and LTFMP shall be implemented in full and in accordance with the approved timing, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To enable appropriate woodland removal to proceed, without incurring a net loss in woodland related public benefit, in accordance with the Scottish Government's policy on the Control of Woodland Removal. 10. The development shall not become operational until the vehicle wheel cleansing facilities, as approved under application 22/00782/PP, have been installed and brought into operation on the site. Reason: To ensure that material from the site is not deposited on the trunk road to the detriment of road safety. 11. Watercourse crossings hereby permitted shall be designed to at least the capacity of the existing channel, and to the 1 in 200 years plus climate change flow, and an allowance for freeboard, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. This includes the replacement of the existing River Array watercourse crossing with a new oversized box culvert, or bottomless traditional style bridge to accommodate the 1 in 200 year flood event without constriction. Reason: To ensure that new watercourse crossings do not affect the existing flows in the interests of flood risk. 12. The development shall not include for the provision of walls, fences or hedges within 2.0 metres of the carriageway of the public road, and any gates shall open inwards, away from the public road. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 13. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Operational Services Drawing No SD08/001a; and visibility splays of 160 metres x 2.4 metres shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Page 18
Page 19
Reason: In the interests of road safety. 14. No external lighting shall be installed on the site other than with the prior written approval of the planning authority. In that event the location, type and luminance of the lighting units to be installed shall be specified, and any duly approved lighting shall be installed in a manner which minimises illumination and glare outwith the boundary of the application site. The site shall not be illuminated other than in the event of staff being present on site. Reason: In order to avoid unnecessary visual intrusion, in the interests of the visual amenity of an area otherwise unaffected by the presence of light sources. 15. All vehicles transporting construction material to and from the proposed development shall be sheeted. Reason: To ensure that material from the site is not deposited on the trunk road to the detriment of road safety. 16. Any blasting for the development hereby permitted shall not exceed vibration levels at the nearest Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSR) of the guideline limits presented in BS 7385-2: 19937 and BS 6472-2: 20088. Reason: In the interests of protecting amenity of neighbouring land use occupiers. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 October 2024, submitted) 8. MASTERPLAN REPORT: DUNOON & KILBRIDE HILL STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN (24/00604/MPLAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The Dunoon Project Limited is a registered community based charity that has produced a strategic masterplan, in consultation with the local community and key stakeholders, to guide the development of a new tourist and recreation attraction on Kilbride Hill, Dunoon. The Strategic Masterplan identifies a set of broad and overarching development principles to deliver the vision of creating “The place for nature-based world class adventures, attracting visitors to our thriving community connected to an outstanding environment”. It is considered that the components of the proposed Strategic Masterplan, including the vision, principles and indicative site designs, are appropriate for the sustainable development of the site area. The indicative site designs provide a framework to guide more detailed future planning applications. It was recommended that the Strategic Masterplan be endorsed and shall form a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications. Given the outline nature, the Strategic Masterplan should be updated as developments are approved at the site in conformity with the Masterplan which prove to have implications for the delivery of development within the remainder of the site. Decision The Committee agreed: Page 19
Page 20
1. that the Strategic Masterplan be endorsed and should form a material consideration in the determination of future planning applications; and 2. that the Strategic Masterplan be updated as developments are approved at the site in conformity with the Masterplan which prove to have implications for the delivery of development within the remainder of the site. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 9 October 2024, submitted) 9. SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC: SECTION 42 APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF CONDITION 7 RELATIVE TO PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 23/00382/PP (ERECTION OF HIGH VOLTAGE ELECTRICITY SUBSTATION AND FORMATION OF ASSOCIATED ACCESS, LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE AND MEANS OF ENCLOSURE AND PLATFORM EXTENSION): LAND ADJACENT TO CROSSAIG SUB STATION, SKIPNESS (REF: 24/01098/PP) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. A Section 42 application is an application for a new planning permission for a development but with different conditions from those attached to a previous permission for the same development. In determining such an application, the Planning Authority can only consider the changes to the conditions on the previous permission. The principle of development is not under consideration and the original permission remains live. The Applicant wishes to amend the wording of Condition 7 of the original permission reference 23/00383/PP. This condition required the submission of a Peat Management Plan to be discharged in consultation with SEPA. SEPA have previously approved the proposed peat management plan and the plan itself remains unchanged from the details that SEPA have already approved. The wording that SSEN wish to amend is as detailed at section (P)(ii) of the report and no objections are raised by SEPA in respect of the proposed amendment. Officers consider that the proposal accords with the principles and policies contained within both the adopted NPF4 and the adopted LDP2 and the Section 42 application to amend the planning condition is considered acceptable, subject to the retention and amendment of the remaining planning conditions in terms of all other applicable material considerations. It was recommended that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission, in accordance with Section 42 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, subject to the following conditions and reasons: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Page 20
Page 21
Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 14.12.22; the Environmental Appraisal (December 2022), supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Version Date Received Site Location Plan (1:75000) 24.02.23 Red Line Boundary Plan (Fig 1.1) 24.02.23 Revised Site Layout Plan 4534d-DR-P-0017 Rev 5 26.05.23 Existing Substation Layout and proposed Extension Plan 4543d-DR-P-0027 24.02.23 Septic Tank and Borehole Plan ( Fig13) (1:2500) 31.03.23 Substation Compound Layout and Electrical Section Locations 4534d-DR-P-0004 Rev.2 24.2.23 275Kv Control Building Layout 4534d-DR-P0005 Rev 2 24.2.23 275kv Control Building Elevations 4534d-DR-P-0006 Rev.2 24.2.23 132kv Control Building Elevations 4534d-DR-P-0023 Rev.1 24.2.23 132kv Control Building Layout 4534d-DR-P-0022 Rev.1 24.2.23 Transformer Building Layout 4534d-DR-P-0020 Rev.1 24.2.23 Transformer Building Elevations 4534d-DR-P-0019 Rev.1 24.2.23 Generator Building Elevations and Floor Plan 4534d-DR-P-0009 Rev.2 24.2.23 Electrical Layout Elevations 01 4534d-DR-P-0011 Rev.1 24.2.23 Typical Deer Fence and Gate 4534d-DR-P-0016 - 24.2.23 2.5m High Security Palisade Fencing Details CE/34/2015 Rev. E 24.2.23 Site Access Details 4534d-DR-P-0008 Rev.2 24.2.23 Proposed Site Access Profiles 4534d-DR-P-0021 Rev.1 24.2.23 Proposed Site Profiles 4534d-DR-P-0018 Rev.1 24.2.23 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. No construction works shall be commenced until a Finalised Construction Environmental Management Plan [CEMP] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with SEPA and other consultees, as appropriate. The development shall then proceed in accordance with the approved CEMP unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include: a) An updated Schedule of Mitigation (SM) highlighting mitigation set out within each chapter of the Environmental Appraisal (EA), and the conditions of this consent; b) Processes to control/ action changes from the agreed SM; c) Construction Environmental Management Plans (CEMPs) for the construction phase covering: Page 21
Page 22
i) Habitat and species protection, including ECoW Details, surveys and species protection plans; ii) Landscape and Mitigation Restoration Plan including compensatory planting (refer to Condition 9); iii) Pollution prevention and control; iv) Dust management, including construction activity and vehicle movements; v) Construction noise and vibration vi) Temporary site lighting; vii) Watercourse crossings; viii) Site waste management ix) Surface and ground water management, including: drainage and sediment management measures from all construction areas including access tracks, mechanisms to ensure that construction will not take place during periods of high flow or high rainfall; and a programme of water quality monitoring; x) Mapping of borrow pits and associated habitats identified for restoration; xi) Invasive Non-Native Species Management Plan xii) Emergency Response Plans; xiii) Timetable for post construction restoration/ reinstatement of the temporary working areas and construction compound; and xiv) Other relevant environmental management as may be relevant to the development d) A statement of responsibility to 'stop the job/ activity' if a breach or potential breach of mitigation or legislation occurs; and e) Methods of monitoring, auditing, reporting and the communication of environmental management on site and with client, Planning Authority, and other relevant parties. Reason: To ensure protection of surrounding environmental interests and general amenity. 3. No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP)and Phased Delivery Plan have been prepared and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and Transport Scotland as the trunk roads Authority. The Plan shall include details of: a) Approved access routes, • All HGV construction traffic to use the Cross Kintyre Haul Route. • The B8001 Redhouse - Skipness Road and the B842 Claonaig - Southend Road must not be used by HGV's. • The B8001 Redhouse - Skipness Road and the B842 Claonaig - Southend Road may be used by LGV related to these works b) Agreed operational practises (including avoidance of convoy movements, specifying conduct in use of passing places, identification of turning areas, information of wheel cleansing facilities, signage to be installed on the A83 warning of construction traffic, signage or temporary traffic control measures to include for larger or abnormal loads, reporting of verge damage); c) The provision of an appropriate Code of Practice to drivers of construction and delivery vehicles. Page 22
Page 23
d) Abnormal load route surveys and finalised plan (including any accommodation measures required including the removal of street furniture, junction widening, traffic management). The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved Traffic Management Plan. Reason: To minimise the interference with the safety and free flow of traffic on the trunk road and to ensure that the transportation of abnormal loads will not have any detrimental effect on the trunk or local road network. 4. No development or ground breaking works shall commence until a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the West of Scotland Archaeology Service. The scheme shall be prepared by a suitably qualified person and shall provide for the recording, recovery and reporting of items of interest or finds within the application site. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details with the suitably qualified person being afforded access at all reasonable times during ground disturbance works. Reason: In order to protect archaeological resources. 5. No development shall commence, until a strategy for housing incoming construction workers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to ensure that any potential adverse impacts on the functioning of the local housing market and tourist accommodation to the detriment of the interests of the local community are identified and mitigated in accordance with the requirements of NPF4, and in particular Policy 11C and Policy 25 Objectives. 6. No development shall commence until an appraisal of the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the intended private water supply and the system required to serve the development has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. The appraisal shall be carried out by a qualified hydrologist/ hydrogeologist or other suitably competent person and shall include a risk assessment having regard to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 or Part 3 of the Water Intended for Human Consumption (Private Supplies) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (as appropriate) which shall inform the design of the system by which a wholesome and sufficient water supply shall be provided and maintained. The appraisal shall also demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of any other supply in the vicinity of the development, or any other person utilising the same source or supply, shall not be compromised by the proposed development. The development shall not be brought into use or occupied until the required water supply system has been installed in accordance with the agreed specification and is operational. Reason: In the interests of public health and in order to ensure that an adequate private water supply in terms of both wholesomeness and sufficiency can be provided Page 23
Page 24
to meet the requirements of the proposed development and without compromising the interests of other users of the same or nearby private water supplies. 7. No development shall commence until a detailed peat management and reinstatement plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with SEPA. This shall be submitted to the planning authority and SEPA no later than two months prior to the intended commencement of development date and include details of: (i) The written consent of all landowners whose land is to be utilised. (ii) Methodology and volume of extraction. (iii) Phasing/timing of any works impacting peat. (iv) Quality/classification of Peat to be extracted. (v) Details of any onsite peat re-instatement and /or enhancement. (vi) Details of storage and transportation. (vii) Details of the location, area, and condition of onsite or offsite peatland to be improved. (viii) Details of peat enhancement measures on this land (ix) Details of peatland restoration outcomes to be achieved. (x) Details of ongoing management arrangements of the restored peatland The restored peatland shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the terms of approved peatland management plan. The restored peatland shall be maintained in accordance with the terms of the approved peat management plan for a period of 15 years, from commencement of works under approved peat management plan The restored area shall not be subject to any works or operations for a period of 15 years, from commencement of works under approved peat management plan which would undermine the objectives of the restoration objectives contained in the approved Peat Management Plan. The peat improvement works shall also be undertaken in accordance with the objectives of the necessary habitat and management plan set out at condition 08 below. Reason: In order to minimise disturbance of peat and ensure the appropriate reinstatement, reuse and management of peat in accordance with NPF 4 Policy 5 (c) objectives. 8. No works to excavate any peat on the site shall be undertaken until a Habitat Management and Enhancement Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with its biodiversity advisor. Reason: To ensure that works result in habitat enhancement works being undertaken in accordance with NPF 4 and LDP Objectives. 9. No development shall commence until a detailed Compensatory Planting Plan (CPP) and Long Term Forestry Management Plan (LTFMP) are submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Forestry. The approved CPP and LTFMP shall be implemented in full and in accordance with the approved timing, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 24
Page 25
Reason: To enable appropriate woodland removal to proceed, without incurring a net loss in woodland related public benefit, in accordance with the Scottish Government's policy on the Control of Woodland Removal. 10. No development shall commence, until a revised Landscape Planting Plan and Maintenance Plan in accordance with BS EN ISO 11091:1999 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The revised plans must include: a) A plan showing numbers and locations of each tree and shrub species; b) Planting schedule to show for each species, the total number, type and size at planting; c) Specification for planting to include ground preparation, planting operations and protection from herbivores; d) Compensatory planting scheme for tree loss e) Schedule of implementation and phasing; The approved Landscape Planting Plan and Maintenance Plan shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the implementation schedule and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Any plant losses within the first five years will be replaced at the next planting season. Reason: To ensure the development conserves and enhances the landscape character and biodiversity interests of the area. 11. Any watercourse crossings, hereby permitted, shall be designed to at least the capacity of the existing channel and to the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flow and an allowance for freeboard, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that new watercourse crossings do not affect the existing flows in the interests of flood risk. 12. No external lighting shall be installed on the site other than with the prior written approval of the planning authority. In that event the location, type and luminance of the lighting units to be installed shall be specified, and any duly approved lighting shall be installed in a manner which minimises illumination and glare outwith the boundary of the application site. The completed site shall not be illuminated other than in the event of staff being present on site. Reason: In order to avoid unnecessary visual intrusion in the interests of the visual amenity of an area otherwise unaffected by the presence of light sources. 13. No development shall take place outside the following hours: 07.00hrs and 19.00hrs Mon to Friday (inclusive) 07.00hrs and 18.00hrs Saturday No construction works shall take place on Sundays or Scottish Bank Holidays unless as otherwise may be agreed in writing with Environmental Protection Officers in advance of the operations Non-construction work and switching works can be carried out on Sundays and Scottish Bank Holidays between the hours of 08.00 and 13.00. Page 25
Page 26
Reason: To minimise the impact of noise, generated by construction activities, on occupiers of residential properties. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 8 October 2024, submitted) 10. GOVERNMENT CONSULTATIONS: BUILDING REGULATIONS: DETERMINING THE PRINCIPLES FOR A SCOTTISH EQUIVALENT TO THE PASSIVHAUS STANDARD: STAGE 1 CONSULTATION The Scottish building regulations set minimum standards applicable to new buildings and to new work to existing buildings. In December 2022, the then Minister for Zero Carbon Buildings, Active Travel and Tenants’ Rights, confirmed that, in response to Alex Rowley MSP’S Proposed Domestic Building Environmental Standards (Scotland) Bill, the Scottish Government would make subordinate legislation by 14 December 2024 to give effect to Mr Rowley’s final proposal. The proposal was “to introduce a new minimum environmental design standards for all new build housing to meet a Scottish equivalent to the Passivhaus standard, in order to improve energy and thermal performance”. Consideration was given to a report providing a proposed response to a Scottish Government consultation which seeks detailed responses on specific questions on the concept of a Scottish equivalent and issues around specification and calculation tools. Decision The Committee considered and approved the response outlined in Appendix 1 of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 25 September 2024, submitted) 11. REGULATORY SERVICES PERFORMANCE REPORT 2023-2024 A report updating the Committee on progress which has been made to deliver the Regulatory Services Service Plan 2023/25, highlighting achievements and performance in 2023-2024, and identifying additional priorities for the forthcoming year, was considered. Decision The Committee: 1. considered and noted the achievements and performance by Regulatory Services in 2023/24; and 2. noted the Service was operating circumstances and recruitment difficulties, the continued need to direct resources to high priority areas, and to secure appropriate resources. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 2 October 2024, submitted) Page 26
Page 27
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 23 OCTOBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Eleanor Martin, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (E MARTIN, DUNBEG) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the party (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Eleanor Martin joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of her application. APPLICANT The applicant stated she had been a taxi driver in Oban for 5 years and wanted to become self-employed as it provided more flexibility for her working hours. She advised she would work as a rank taxi and stated there was a need for those in Oban. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from the Applicant that her car was currently insured. SUMMING UP Applicant Page 27 Agenda Item 3b
Page 28
Ms Martin reiterated that she enjoyed being a taxi driver and wanted to become self- employed to have more flexibility over her working hours. She also stated that she wanted to meet the needs of the customer where there was a demand. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation that the Applicant felt she had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Brown stated that she had no concerns with the application. She had recently visited Oban and had observed it was busy and that there was a need for taxis. She confirmed she would have no hesitation in approving the application. Councillor Amanda Hampsey offered her approval of this application and stated it was a good idea for Ms Martin to have her own vehicle and determine her own hours. She also agreed there was a need for more taxis in Oban and stated it was great to have the option of a female driver. Councillor Daniel Hampsey agreed with Councillors Brown and Amanda Hampsey and stated he was happy to approve the application. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a taxi car licence to Eleanor Martin and noted that she 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, 23 OCTOBER 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager David Walker, Solicitor Colin McNeill, Applicant 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Andrew Kain, Paul Kennedy, Liz McCabe and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCE (GLASGOW COACH DRIVERS LIMITED, HELENSBURGH) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the party (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of audio call and Colin McNeill joined the meeting by telephone. The Chair outlined the procedure that would be followed and invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application. APPLICANT Mr McNeill stated that he had applied for a licence for a wheelchair accessible vehicle because he had been getting inundated with requests from within the Helensburgh and Lomond area. He advised that at the moment many customers who required the services had to go to taxi companies out with the area and were incurring additional costs as a result. He stated that he had a driver ready for this vehicle if the licence was granted. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that the Applicant’s car was currently insured. Councillor Hardie enquired if Mr McNeill had seen a rise in the need for taxis in the Helensburgh and Lomond area. Mr McNeill confirmed he received a lot of phone calls for Page 29 Agenda Item 3c
Page 30
his taxis and wheelchair accessible vehicles; especially during the day and over weekends. Councillor Brown sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that Mr McNeill’s car had a valid MOT certificate. Councillor Blair enquired if drivers of wheelchair accessible vehicles were required to undertake moving and handling training. Mr McNeill advised that although it was not mandatory he had contacted a company in Glasgow to provide training to his drivers on the safe loading and unloading of wheelchair passengers. He further advised that the driver waiting to go on this taxi already had the relevant training. Councillor Blair then asked what the gender balance of Mr McNeill’s staff was. Mr McNeill advised that he currently had an all-male workforce but he had been actively trying to recruit female drivers although he had not received any interest so far. SUMMING UP Applicant Mr McNeill reiterated that if the licence was granted he had a trained driver ready to go on the vehicle and another ready to submit his paperwork to cover some shifts. He also confirmed he would like to have a mixed gender workforce but had received no female applicants. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation that the Applicant felt he had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Hardie stated that the applicant seemed very organised and there would be a demand for more taxis in the area as Helensburgh continued to expand. He confirmed he would have no problem approving the application. Councillor Blair commended the inclusion of accessible vehicles. DECISION The Committee unanimously agreed to grant a taxi car licence to Mr McNeill and noted that he would receive written confirmation of this within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 30
Page 31
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 20 NOVEMBER 2024 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI SURVEY 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Reference is made to the Report by the Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support in respect of a Taxi Survey, and submitted for consideration by the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee at their meeting on 24th January, 2024. It was agreed by Members at that meeting to instruct Officers to commission a new taxi survey for the Helensburgh and Lomond administrative area only, in relation to whether there is unmet demand for taxis within that area. Members also agreed that, in going forward in the other administrative areas ( Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorn and the Isles and Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands), there would be no regard taken to the existing taxi surveys when considering applications for taxi car/operator licences. 1.2 The purpose of the present report is to provide information to Members to enable them to consider whether they now wish to include the other three Argyll and Bute Council administrative areas of Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorn and the Isles, and Mid-Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands in the new taxi survey along with the previously agreed Helensburgh and Lomond administrative area. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members are asked to note the contents of this report. 2.2 Members are asked to consider whether they now wish to include all 4 administrative areas of Argyll and Bute Council in the commission of a new taxi survey to ascertain whether there is currently any significant unmet demand for taxis within the local authority area. 2.3 Members are asked to agree that, until such time as the new surveys are available, regard will be had to the existing LVSA surveys (dated August 2019) in respect of Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorn and the Isles and Mid-Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands. Page 31 Agenda Item 4
Page 32
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUPPORT 20 NOVEMBER 2024 CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 TAXI CAR SURVEY 3.0 INTRODUCTION 3.1 The purpose of this report is to provide information to members to enable them to consider whether they wish to include the other administrative areas of Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorn and the Isles, and Mid-Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands in the new taxi survey previously commissioned for Helensburgh and Lomond on 23 January 2024 in relation to whether there is unmet demand for taxis within the local authority area. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Members are asked to note the contents of this report. 4.2 Members are asked to consider whether they wish to include the other administrative areas of Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorn and the Isles, and Mid-Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands in the new taxi survey previously commissioned for Helensburgh and Lomond on 23 January 2024 in relation to whether there is unmet demand for taxis within the local authority area. 4.3 Members are asked to agree that, until such time as the new surveys are available, regard will be had to the existing LVSA surveys (dated August 2019) in respect of Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorn and the Isles and Mid-Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands. 5.0 DETAILS 5.1 Section 10(3) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 deals with taxi licences and provides that the grant of a taxi licence may be refused by a licensing authority for the purpose of limiting the number of taxis in respect of which licences are granted if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of taxis in their area which is unmet. 5.2 In carrying out this test to ascertain whether there is significant unmet demand in respect to the Bute and Cowal, Helensburgh and Lomond, Oban, Lorn and the Isles and Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay areas, the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee previously referred to LVSA surveys carried out in 2019 in relation to those respective taxi zones. 5.3 Members agreed at their meeting on 24 January 2024: to instruct Officers to commission a new taxi survey for the Helensburgh and Lomond administrative area; that going forward in the other administrative areas (Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorn and the Isles, and Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands) that there would be no regard taken to the existing taxi surveys when considering applications for taxi car/operator Page 32
Page 33
Classification: OFFICIAL licences; and that no further survey be carried out in respect of private hire cars at this time as the last surveys concluded that there was not an over provision of private hire cars as a whole. 5.4 The three-yearly process for the renewal of the vast majority of civic government licences took place in June of this year. There were in the region of 500 applications to be processed. In order to ensure that any survey was as relevant and up to date as possible, it is considered appropriate that the commissioning of a new survey would best be timed to coincide with the completion of the renewal process. 5.5 The Scottish Government in the most recent edition of their best practice guidance for local licensing authorities and taxi and private hire car operators on the licensing of taxis and private hire cars and their drivers issued on 31 May 2023 states the legal provision on quantity restrictions for taxis is set out in section 10(3) of the 1982 Act. This provides that: …the grant of a taxi licence may be refused by a licensing authority for the purpose of limiting the number of taxis in respect of which licences are granted by them if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of taxis in their area which is unmet. 5.53 Local licensing authorities will be aware that, in the event of a challenge to a decision to refuse a licence, the licensing authority concerned would be required to establish to the satisfaction of the court that it had first satisfied itself that there was no such significant unmet demand. 5.54 The Scottish Government is of the view that decisions as to the case for limiting taxi licences should remain a matter for licensing authorities in the light of local circumstances. Licensing authorities that presently restrict numbers of taxi licences are, however, encouraged to periodically review this policy and to examine the wider policy direction. 5.55 Licensing authorities in reviewing their policy with regard to quantity restrictions on taxi licences should consider whether any restriction presently in place should continue. The matter should be approached in terms of the interests of taxi users. What benefit is achieved for them by the continuation of controls and how might they benefit if the controls were removed? Is there evidence that removal of the controls would result in a clear and unambiguous deterioration in the amount or quality of taxi service provision? Authorities in assessing the case for quantity restrictions will wish also to have regard to the availability of an appropriate supply of accessible vehicles within the hire car fleet such as to meet the needs of passengers with a disability. 5.57 The Scottish Government agrees that the question of the restriction of licences should be left to the discretion of licensing authorities. However, there is a need for review of the frequency and component parts of the surveys used by licensing authorities to measure unmet demand. In regard to frequency, licensing authorities should carry out a survey sufficiently frequently to be able to respond to any challenge to the satisfaction of a court. 6. CONCLUSION 6.1 In terms of section 10(3) of the 1982 Act, the grant of a taxi licence may be refused by a licensing authority for the purpose of limiting the number of taxis in respect of which licences are granted by them, but only if, they are satisfied that there is not significant demand for the services of taxis in their area which is unmet. The Act says Page 33
Page 34
Classification: OFFICIAL “may” refuse, and Members are not required to refuse an application. There is a potential difficulty in the decision to disregard the taxi surveys as it leaves the Council with no evidence that there is now a significant demand for taxis, which leaves the Council open to challenge. Commissioning a new survey that captures all of the relevant survey data for all 4 administrative taxi areas for Argyll and Bute Council is likely to assist in avoiding any grounds for challenge on this particular issue. 6.2 The three yearly renewal process for taxi licences has now been completed and a new survey encompassing all four administrative areas will be able to take account of any change there may have been in the number of licences. 7. IMPLICATIONS 7.1 Policy - No changes are proposed at this time 7.2 Financial - The Council will need to fund the cost of a further survey 7.3 Legal - The Council require to comply with the terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 7.4 HR – None at this time 7.5. Fairer Scotland Duty: 7.5.1 Equalities – Protected Characteristics – None at this time 7.5.2 Socio Economic Duty – None at this time 7.5.3 Islands – None at this time 7.6 Climate Change – None at this time 7.7 Risks - There is a risk of challenge to any decision in relation to the granting of taxi licences 7.8 Customer Service – None at this time 7.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – None at this time Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead: Councillor Kieron Green 26 September 2024 For further information contact: Susan Mair, Legal Manager Tel: 01546 604117 Email: susan.mair@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 34
Page 35
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll & Bute Council Development & Economic Growth This report is a recommended response to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) consultation on the Section 36 Consultation for Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park Ltd comprising up to 13 turbines with a maximum height of 180m and ancillary infrastructure, including a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) on Land approximately 4.7 km north of Inveraray Reference No: 24/00053/S36/ECU00003291 Applicant: The Scottish Government Proposal: Section 36 Consultation for erection of 13 turbines with a maximum height of 180m, and ancillary infrastructure, including a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Site Address: Land Approximately 4.7 km north of Inveraray (A) THE APPLICATION Section 36 Application made up of the following key elements: • Up to 13 wind turbines (with transformers located at base), up to a maximum tip height of 180m • Foundations supporting each wind turbine • Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with capacity up to 41.4 MW • Compound containing the substation and control building, battery energy storage system (BESS) and parking • Permanent meteorological mast, up to 112m in height • Crane hardstandings and laydown areas at each turbine • Underground cabling to connect the turbines to the onsite substation • Two temporary construction compounds • Extension to existing quarry/borrow pit • Temporary laydown areas • Access track to serve the construction and operation of the wind farm, consisting of a combination of upgraded and newly constructed track. • Felling of approximately 79.3ha of forestry. There will be replanting on-site, however off-site compensatory planting of 48.7 ha will be required. • 20 new watercourse crossings and 10 existing crossing points require to be upgraded • Access from public road A819 at two points – formation of new access and upgrading of existing access • Site signage • Vehicle turning heads The expected operational life is 40 years from the date of commissioning. Connection to Electricity Grid - The grid connection would be routed through existing forest tracks and within the A819, to a new substation on the transmission system located at Creag Dubh, approximately 3km to the north of the site, on the Page 35 Agenda Item 5
Page 36
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL western side of the A819. The grid connection would be the subject of a separate planning application. (B) RECOMMENDATION: That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Argyll & Bute Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that there are unresolved noise issues, and it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal's acceptability in this regard at this time. If these matters are resolved Argyll & Council will withdraw this objection. (2) 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 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. (3) Argyll & Bute Council recommends that the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer are considered by the ECU: Page 36
Page 37
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • 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. (4) Argyll & Bute Council recommends that all conditions recommended by consultees should be included in any Consent (C) CONSULTATIONS: ENERGY CONSENTS UNIT RESPONSES NatureScot (5th April 2024) – advised the ECU there are natural heritage interests of international importance on site with relation to Glen Etive and Glen Fyne Special Protection Area, but they will not be adversely affected by the proposal. Advice is also provided regarding operational, and construction impacts on Schedule 1 birds, landscape and visual impacts, and priority peatland habitats. Applicant Response to NatureScot Consultation (29th April 2024) – response was provided to NatureScot’s comments. Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) (15th March 2024) – advised the ECU they do not object. RSPB Scotland (4th March 2024) – advised the ECU they do not object and welcome the siting of most of the infrastructure within commercial forestry plantation. They consider proposals for the delivery of biodiversity enhancement require further work in respect to the following issues: cumulative development pressures and grid connection route; and delivering biodiversity enhancement in line with NPF4. Applicant response to RSPB Scotland (29th April 2024) – relating to the grid connection and the outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (oBEMP). Historic Environment Scotland (HES) (27th March 2024) – advised the ECU that the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance, and they do not object. Scottish Forestry (26th February 2024) – initially recommended to the ECU that further consideration should be given to addressing the following issues: restock species; ancient native woodland felling and loss; a native woodland plan; relocation of temporary works; compensatory planting condition; and consenting routes. Applicant response to Scottish Forestry (24th July 2024) – relating to the matters raised including restock species; ancient woodland; and compensatory planting. Scottish Forestry updated advice (8th August 2024) – advised the ECU that no outstanding action is required regarding restock species; ancient native woodland; a native woodland plan; and relocation of the temporary works. Previous advice Page 37
Page 38
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL regarding consenting routes still applies. Compensatory planting of 48.7ha should be secured by a planning condition. Transport Scotland (TS) (28th February 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions to secure approval of: the proposed route for any abnormal loads; details of any accommodation measures required to facilitate the abnormal load route; signing or temporary traffic control measures; blade lifter technology (to include risk assessment and method statement); a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Advisory notes are also provided setting out requirements relating to works within the trunk road boundary. Network Rail (1st March 2024) – advised the ECU they object. They require additional information to enable them to fully assess the impacts of increased traffic movements on Annat West Level Crossing. Network Rail may be able to withdraw its objection subject to provision of satisfactory additional Traffic Assessment/Statement. Applicant rebuttal to Network Rail (13th March 2024) – response provided to the ECU to clarify the matters raised by Network Rail. Scottish & Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN) (6th March 2024) – advised the ECU they require more information regarding changes in levels to the access track before they can be satisfied the proposal meets their obligations. Addendum to SSEN response (22nd April 2024) – advised the ECU that they are satisfied subject an appropriately worded condition to: secure the finished level details of the access road underneath their overhead line before development commences and to ensure the vertical ground clearance underneath the overhead line is acceptable to SSEN Transmission; and, ensure the agreed finished ground levels for the section of the access track underneath the overhead line are enforced. SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (15th March 2024) – initially advised the ECU they objected due to a lack of information in relation to peat. Information required included: the methodology for the peat surveys; provision of all peat depths; and resiting of the access track between T1 and T3 to avoid deep peat. SEPA also provided advice on: Private Water Supplies; Ground Water Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems; other planning matters and regulatory advice for the applicant. SEPA response removal of holding objection (26th June 2024) – advised the ECU that following review of information provided by the Applicant, they can remove their objection regarding peat issues and track alignment. SEPA look forward to receiving the final Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan for full details of net gain when it is produced. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) (19th February 2024) – advised the ECU they are mindful of the recent IUCN reclassification of Atlantic salmon in Great Britain to ‘endangered’. They therefore urge that any permissions given for the development include pre, during and post construction monitoring of the water environment and fish populations of the River Aray and its tributary streams. Furthermore, that the developer maintains a line of communication with Argyll Fisheries Trust throughout the construction phase to provide them with assurances that full protection of their interests is maintained. Page 38
Page 39
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Water (12th January 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposal can be serviced. Advice is also provided on: Drinking Water Protected Areas and Surface Water. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, Stage 1 Checking Report (PLHRA) (28th March 2024) – advised the ECU that clarification was required in respect to: extent of works required to upgraded track; further probing; confirmation that the Overhead Line has been considered; and the A819 score. Applicant Response to Ironside Farrar Stage 1 Checking Report (23rd May 2024) – the applicant provided the ECU with clarifications to the points raised. Ironside Farrar, Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment, Stage 2 Checking Report (PLHRA) (17th September 2024) - confirmed that the Applicant’s response adequately addresses the queries raised. The assessment can now be considered complete with no further work/response required at this stage. Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) (29th January 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions relating to secure Aviation Lighting and Aviation Charting and Safety Management. As a minimum the MOD require that the perimeter turbines and meteorological mast be fitted with 25cd visible or infra- red (IR) lighting. NATS Safeguarding (11th January 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Glasgow Airport (15th January 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Glasgow Prestwick Airport (GPA) (11th January 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. BT (16th January 2024) – advised the ECU they have no objection. Argyll & Bute Council Consultee Responses Consultant Landscape Architect (24th July 2024) – considers 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 proposal 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 and more should be done to improve the angular northern and south-eastern margins of productive forest. The planting of more extensive native woodlands should form part of the 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. Page 39
Page 40
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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 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. Key visualisation for the Committee to review are also recommended: Applicant response to advice of Consultant Landscape (12th September 2024) – in summary advise that they have sought to take a positive and reasoned position in their response to the LVIA consultation response. They have explained why they consider the reduction or removal of turbines is not proportionate considering the mitigation work already undertaken and the consequences of taking further action. However, they have taken further steps to provide additional mitigation in the form of micrositing and aviation lighting reductions. They commit to revisiting habitat restoration opportunities during detailed design. Consultant Landscape Architect (Review of Applicant’s response on the Council’s landscape and visual review of the proposal), October 2024 (31st October 2024) – reinforced their previous position of 24th July 2024. Applicant further response to advice of Consultant Landscape Architect (4th November 2024) – reinforced position, and provided information on design mitigation, Du na Cuaiche, Historic Environment Scotland (no objection), reduced aviation lighting scheme and community engagement. Furthermore, they advise that should Scottish Ministers feel that a reduction of T11 and T13 to 150m to tip be necessary to make the scheme acceptable, they would accept such a scheme change. West of Scotland Archaeology Service (25th January 2024) - advised they have no objection subject to a condition to secure a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted by the applicant for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with WoSAS. Local Biodiversity Officer (23rd January 2024) - advised unable to respond and that statutory consultees such as NatureScot and SEPA are best placed to provide advice on biodiversity, natural heritage, and peat issues. Local Biodiversity Officer (4th October 2024) – has responded in relation to biodiversity interest, surveys, mitigation, an outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), a draft Species Protection Pan (SPP) and an outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP). Noise Consultant (23rd October 2024) – concludes that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the Applicant, with a few minor issues identified: Omission of photos for the noise monitoring location at Maam House; The calibration certificates are omitted; Omission of a description of the windshields that were fitted to the noise monitoring equipment (photographs in Appendix 12.1 ‘Baseline Noise Survey Records’ indicate the windshields used were Rion WS-15 type, which is suitable for surveys of this nature); Omission of charts showing wind speeds and directions; and Page 40
Page 41
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The results of the comparative model are not in consistent agreement with the results presented by the Applicant and the reasons for this could not be confirmed. It is recommended that the calculations are checked. Further information on these aspects should be sought from the Applicant, or a suitably worded planning condition included. Following a satisfactory response to the above issues from the Applicant, it is considered that there would be no reasons to object to the scheme on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from the proposed development. It is expected that conditions relating to approve the final turbine selection will already be included as it relates to other aspects than noise alone. Response from Applicant – currently awaited Area Roads (3rd April 2024) – no objection subject to conditions to secure: full details for all locations of carriageway widening for over run areas; a detailed condition survey of the A819 between the A85 Tyndrum - Oban Trunk Road / A819 Inveraray - Dalmally Road junction and the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road / A819 Inveraray - Dalmally Road junction (recorded by means of video and photographs); Traffic Management Plan; all street furniture that has to be removed, to be replaced with new; site access constructed as per the Council’s standard detail drawing SD 08/001 Rev a, after all abnormal loads have stopped; and connection of site access to public road, sightlines to be 160 x 2.40 x 1.05 metres. Notes for intimation to the Applicant include the requirement for a Road Opening Permit and that no surface water should discharged onto the public road. Flood Risk Assessor (7th November 2024) – no objection subject to conditions to ensure that watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre- development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 year plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. Access Officer – at time of writing no response has been received. Please note: the above are summaries and the full consultee responses can be viewed on the Energy Consent Unit and Argyll & Bute Council websites. (D) HISTORY: 23/01459/SCREEN - Section 37 Screening Request for construction of 132kV overhead line, Proposed Blarghour Wind Farm Substation to the Proposed Creag Dhubh Substation, approximately 6km West of Inveraray, Argyll & Bute – Opinion Issued 3rd November 2023. 23/00072/PNWAY - Formation of forest track, Land West of Glenshira Cemetery Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Prior Approval not Required 6th March 2023. 21/01557/SCOPE - S36 Scoping consultation for proposed wind farm (22 turbines up to 200 meters high to blade tip), Ladyfield Wind Farm, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute – Opinion Issued 15th February 2022. Page 41
Page 42
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 21/00402/PNFOR - Upgrade of existing forest track and formation of new track, Dunderave Forest, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Prior Notification - no objection,19th March 2021. 20/02178/PP - Erection of meteorological mast (up to 100 metres high), Land 1.5km Northwest of Ladyfield Cottage, Ladyfield Forest, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Application Approved, 11th March 2021. 18/01706/PNFOR - Formation of ATV Track, Ladyfield Forest, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Prior Notification - no objection 23rd August 2018. 17/00024/PNFOR - Formation of ATV Track, Ladyfield Forest, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Prior Notification - no objection 30th January 2017 16/02609/PNFOR – Formation of ATV Tracks, Ladyfield Forest, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Prior Notification - no objection 28th October 2016 16/00144/PNFOR - Construction of ATV track (1500 metres in length), Ladyfield Forest, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Prior Notification - no objection 24th February 2016. 14/00246/RDCRP - Rural Development Contract, Ladyfield Forest, Inveraray, Argyll & Bute - Application Permitted 28th February 2014. (E) PUBLICITY: As the Council is not the Determining Authority the ECU oversees the Publicity of the application. Public Consultation – Whilst not a statutory requirement for Section 36 applications, the applicant has undertaken Public Consultation. Further information on this is contained in the Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park Pre-Application Consultation Report (October 2023) available on the ECU website (reference: ECU00003291). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: As the Council is not the determining Authority any letters of representation are considered by the Energy Consents Unit. At time of writing, 12 representations in support have been received by the ECU. The key issues raised are summarised below: • Ten of these letters of support are from people who own and occupy land adjacent to the proposal that simply confirm that they have no objection. • Inspire Inveraray fully support the application for the Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park Development. RCE have held consultations with the community offering an opportunity for questions and discussions, with regular updates on changes to planning. We are of the opinion that RCE will be a good 'neighbour' throughout the project's lifetime, working with and benefiting the community. • On behalf of Inveraray Senior Citizens Committee, I wish to make a representation in support of the above application. Ridge Clean Energy Ltd have Page 42
Page 43
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL been active in the Inveraray community for some time now and have been very generous towards our Group by funding our broadband connection for 24 months, which has been a great boost to us, freeing up our own funds to use for the benefit of the senior citizens in the town - much needed more than ever since the Pandemic. We, the Committee, fully support this application as it would be of tremendous benefit to the area and to the town of Inveraray and we hope you will give it your careful consideration and ultimate approval. Note: The comments raised above are addressed in the assessment of the proposal at Appendix A of this report. Note: Please note that the letters of representation above have been summarised and that the full letters of representation are available on the Energy Consents Units website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR): Yes EIAR (October 2023) presented in 4 volumes: • Volume 1 – EIA Report Text • Volume 2 – EIA Report Figures • Volume 2a – Figures excluding LVIA • Volume 2b – LVIA Figures • Volume 2c – LVIA Visualisations • Volume 3 – EIA Report Technical Appendices; and • Volume 4 – EIA Report Non-Technical Summary (NTS) Key topics covered in the EIAR include: Introduction; Development Description; Site Selection & Design; Planning Policy; EIA Methodology; Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA); Ornithology; Ecology; Archaeology & Cultural Heritage; Hydrology & Hydrogeology; Geology & Peat; Noise; Traffic & Transport; Forestry; Land Use, Socio-Economics, Tourism & Recreation; Climate Change & Carbon Balance; Other Issues: Shadow Flicker, Aviation, Telecommunications, Television Reception & Utilities; Intra-Project Cumulative Effects; and Schedule of Mitigation. In addition, the following documents are also provided in support of the application: • Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement, and • Pre-Application Consultation Report; (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: NatureScot will advise the ECU Page 43
Page 44
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04): Not required proposal accompanied by full EIAR. (v) A report on the impact of the proposal e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: All relevant reports are encompassed within the EIAR (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been considered in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations considered in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 33 – Minerals Annex B – National Statements of Need 3. Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation and Transmission Infrastructure Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables Page 44
Page 45
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 31 – Minerals Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 56 – Land Erosion Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact on Sites of International Importance Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (ii) List of all other relevant planning considerations considered in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Draft Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan (January 2023) • Onshore Wind Policy Statement (OWPS) (December 2022) • Historic Environment Policy for Scotland (HEPS, 2019) • Managing Change in the Historic Environment • Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019 • Scottish Government Good Practice Principles for Shared Ownership and Community Benefit of Onshore Renewable Energy Developments (May 2019) • Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017) (LWECS) • Siting and Designing Wind Farms in the Landscape, SNH (August 2017) • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • Onshore Wind Turbines: Planning Advice, Scottish Government (May 2014) • Guidance for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 3rd Edition, Landscape Institute, and Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment, (2013) • PAN 1/2011: ‘Planning and Noise’ (March 2011) • The Scottish Government’s Policy on ‘Control of Woodland Removal’ (Forestry Commission Scotland 2009) • PAN 60 – Planning for Natural Heritage (Jan 2008) • Views of statutory and other consultees • Planning history of the site • Legitimate public concern or support expressed on relevant planning matters (G) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No - Environmental Impact Assessment was required. (H) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): No - PAC is not required for S36 applications. Page 45
Page 46
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (I) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (J) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: No (K) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (L) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: No Author of Report: Arlene Knox Date: 6th November 2024 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 6th November 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 46
Page 47
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/00053/S36 COMMITTEE REPORT PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. THE SECTION 36 CONSENTING REGIME 1.1 In Scotland, any application for an onshore power generating station with an installed capacity of over 50 megawatts (MW) requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any authorisation given includes a deemed planning permission. Consequently, there is no need for a planning application to be made to the Council. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee. 1.2 The Development Plan is not the starting point for considering S36 applications. The reason for this is that the sections of the Planning Act which establish the primacy of Development Plan Policy in decision making are not engaged. NPF4 and LDP2 now form the Development Plan. Whilst they do not have primacy in S36 decision making, they remain an important consideration to inform the Council’s consultation response. 1.3 Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act requires the applicant and the decision maker to have regard to the preservation of amenity. It requires that in the formulation of proposals the developer shall have regard to: (a) the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiological features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historical or archaeological interest; and (b) shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings, or objects. 1.4 It obliges the Scottish Ministers as decision maker to have regard to the desirability of the matters at (a) and the extent to which the applicant has complied with the duty at (b). 1.5 Assessment of the proposal against the policies of NPF4 and LDP2 will ensure that proper consideration is given by the Council to the extent that the proposal satisfies these Schedule 9 duties. 1.6 The Council can either support or object and recommend conditions to be imposed if consent is granted by Scottish Ministers. If an objection is raised by the Council, Scottish Ministers are obliged to hold a Public Local Inquiry (PLI) if they are minded to grant consent. They can also choose to hold a PLI in other circumstances at their own discretion. Any Inquiry would be conducted by a Reporter appointed by the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. If consent is granted the Council as Planning Authority is responsible for the agreement of matters pursuant to conditions, ongoing monitoring and enforcement. Page 47
Page 48
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 1.7 This report considers the relevant policy considerations, planning merits, views of consultees and representations. It recommends views to be conveyed to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) for consideration before a decision is made. 2. SPATIAL AND SETTLEMENT STRATEGY 2.1 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas establishes acceptable scales of development in three different zones. The main wind farm site is located with Remote Countryside Area, which only supports specific categories of development. This includes renewable energy related development. In principle, Policy 02 supports renewable energy and ancillary development in these areas, providing they are consistent with all other relevant LDP2 Policies. With respect to the requirement for developments to accord with all other relevant policies, particular attention is drawn to Policies 70 to 76 with respect to landscape and the natural environment. Proposals must also demonstrate that there will be no unacceptable adverse effects (individual or cumulative) on natural heritage, built and/or cultural heritage, and landscape and visual amenity. 2.2 Policy 04 – Sustainable Development requires that in preparing new proposals developers should demonstrate the following sustainable development principles (where relevant) such as: maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; support existing communities and maximise the use of existing infrastructure and services; conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets; respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; avoid places with significant risk of flooding, or ground instability and avoid having significant adverse impacts on land, air and water environment. This application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment Report (EIAR) which sets out in detail the measures proposed to ensure the proposal is ‘Sustainable Development’. 2.3 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – Sustainable Growth of Renewables LDP2 provide the primary policy framework for assessing renewable energy proposals. In this case, subject to consideration of the mitigation recommended by the Council’s consultant landscape architect it is considered that the landscape & visual impact of the proposal is acceptable, and that all other matters can be suitably mitigated by planning conditions. Considering this, it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with development plan policy relating to the spatial and settlement strategy, which requires proposals to be consistent with all relevant policies. 2.4 For the reasons detailed in this report, it is considered that this proposal satisfies Development Plan Policy and associated guidance in respect of renewable energy development in Argyll & Bute. 2.5 Having due regard to the above, subject to consideration of the mitigation recommended by the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect and recommended planning conditions it is considered that this proposal is consistent with the provisions of LDP 2 Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas and LDP Policy 04 – Sustainable Development. Page 48
Page 49
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 3. ENERGY & SUPPORTING THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH OF RENEWABLES 3.1 Argyll & Bute Council is keen to ensure that Argyll & Bute continues to make a positive contribution to meeting the Scottish Government’s targets for renewable energy generation. These targets are important given the compelling need to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, reinforced by the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. The Council will support renewable energy developments where these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, and it can be adequately demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable significant adverse effects. 3.2 This proposal has been assessed primarily against the two lead Statutory Development Plan policies relating to renewable energy, Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2. Other policies are referred to where relevant. 4. LOCATION NATURE, AND DESIGN OF PROPOSAL 4.1 The proposed site covers an area of approx. 790 ha and is located approx. 4.7km north of Inveraray. The proposed development would be operational for up to 40 years, and thereafter would be decommissioned. 4.2 The elevation of the site ranges from 470m AOD in the east and falls to around 100m AOD in the west. There are several hilltops and ridges within and surrounding the site with the ridge Ceann Chreagan located in the south of the site. Hills in the vicinity include Stuc Scardan (487m AOD) directly east and Tom an Fheidh (237m AOD) directly north. 4.3 Five watercourses traverse the site, including the River Aray, as well as numerous unnamed tributaries draining into the River Aray. Additionally, several small lochans can be found within and surrounding the site. 4.4 The predominant land use within the site consists of private forestry plantation used for commercial purposes with area of upland moorland also present in the south and east of the site. 4.5 No public roads are located within the site. Nearby major roads include the A819 directly to the west and the A83 to the south. The B840 also joins the A819 approx. 4.9km to the north. 4.6 The path C201 – Dun Na Cuaiche is the nearest Core Path to the site and is located approx. 2.7km to the south. 4.7 The closest settlement is Inveraray, approx. 4.7km to the south. While there are several dispersed residential properties surrounding the site, there are no residential properties within it and no properties within 1km of the proposed turbine locations. The closest residential property is Ladyfield Farm, which lies 1.1km northwest of the nearest turbine (T11). 4.8 Proposed Development – the main components are: Page 49
Page 50
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • Turbines - Up to13 turbines, each with a maximum tip height of up to 180 m, with an overall capacity up to 58.5 MW. Each turbine may require a small transformer located at its base. Each turbine will have a foundation. • Site Access - The site will be accessed via two access points off the A819. A new access junction is proposed to be constructed in the north of the Site, as part of the Development. Secondly, an existing access junction would be upgraded and the existing crossing over the River Aray would be removed and a new bridge installed. • Access track - to serve the construction and operation of the wind farm, this will consist of a combination of upgraded track and newly constructed track. The length of onsite access tracks will total approximately 13.7 km which consists of localised upgrades to 4 km of existing forestry track and 9.7 km of new track • Electrical Infrastructure - A substation and control building. The substation and control building will be located within a compound, shared with the BESS which will also include any external electrical infrastructure and vehicle parking. Underground cabling, laid where possible alongside the access tracks, will link the turbine transformers to the onsite substation. • Battery Energy Storage System - The project will have a BESS with a capacity up to 41.4 MW. • Crane Hardstanding - Crane hardstandings will be required adjacent to each turbine. • Temporary Construction Compound - Two Temporary Construction Compounds will be required during the construction of the Development, forming an area of hardstanding providing space for temporary welfare, parking, lay down areas and potentially concrete batching. • Existing Quarry - The project will include a 50m x 40m extension to the existing quarry • Forestry Felling - The Development will require the felling of approximately 79.3 hectares (ha) of existing forestry. There will be replanting on-site, however off-site compensatory planting of 48.7 ha will be required. • Watercourse Crossings - 20 new watercourse crossing points will be required. 10 existing crossing points will require upgrading. • Met Mast - A permanent mast is proposed. The met mast will be a free- standing lattice tower up to 112 m in height. • Site signage Infrastructure 4.9 Connection to Electricity Grid – the grid connection would be routed through existing forest tracks and within the A819, to a new substation on the transmission system located at Creag Dubh, approx 3km to the north. This would be subject to further appraisal work and a separate planning application. 4.10 Scottish & Southern Electricity Networks – have advised the ECU they are satisfied subject to an appropriately worded condition to secure the finished level details of the access road underneath their overhead line, to ensure the ground clearance underneath the line is acceptable, and to ensure any agreed finish ground levels for the access track underneath the overhead line are enforced. 4.11 Scottish Water – have advised the ECU that they have no objection, however this does not confirm that the proposal can currently be serviced. Advice is also provided on Drinking Water Protected Areas and Surface Water. Page 50
Page 51
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 4.12 Drinking Water Protected Areas – they have confirmed there are no Scottish Water drinking water catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be affected by the proposal. 4.13 Surface Water – for reasons of sustainability and to protect customers from potential future sewer flooding, Scottish Water have advised that they will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system. 4.14 Private Water supplies (PWS) – SEPA have advised the ECU there are no private water supplies within the site boundary. One PWS for domestic use was identified 138m west if the site boundary which supplies Ladyfield farm. The PWS source is described as a spring with intake drawing from the Allt a Mhadaidh burn. It is located outside the relevant buffer zones as set out in SEPA guidance with the closest wind farm infrastructure, access track and T13 located approx. 900m east of the spring. Overall SEPA agree with the applicant’s risk assessment for the PWS sources and the proposal to monitor Ladyfield PWS. 5. NET ECONOMIC IMPACT, INCLUDING LOCAL AND COMMUNITY SOCIO- ECONOMIC BENEFITS 5.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 states that proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio- economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP 2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed in terms of net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business, and supply chain opportunities. 5.2 During the construction phase, there is anticipated to be a moderate (beneficial) effect on the regional and Scottish economy because of capital expenditure in the local area from the proposal. A minor (beneficial) effect is predicted for local employment, and a negligible effect on skill development and indirect employment. 5.3 During the operational phase, a minor beneficial effect is anticipated for the local and regional economy, as well as a negligible effect on local employment opportunities. 5.4 The Applicant has stated they will contribute £5000 per MW of installed capacity per annum into a community benefit fund. This equates to a maximum of £429,000 of income per annum, or over £17.1 million over the 40-year operation life of the proposal, subject to the eventual turbines and capacity installed. A moderate (positive) effect is therefore predicted in relation to direct economic benefits. 5.5 The Applicant has been involved in community initiatives including working with Inspire Inveraray and Inveraray Community Council to restore Inveraray Pier and supporting Inveraray Senior Citizens ‘Warm Spaces’ project in partnership with Inveraray Community Council and The George Hotel. Both Inspire Inveraray and Inveraray Senior Citizens Committee have written to the ECU in support of this proposal (included in the 12 letters of support at Section F) Page 51
Page 52
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 5.6 The economic benefits associated with this proposal relating to job creation and benefits to the local economy from the influx of construction workers, by spending on accommodation, eating out and visiting local attractions are a relevant consideration, which has been considered. Community Benefit is not however, a ‘material planning consideration’ in the determination of planning applications, as there is no planning mechanism available to secure it. If consent were to be granted, the negotiation of any community benefit either directly with the local community or under the auspices of the Council, would take place outside the application process. 5.7 Having due regard to the above it is considered a degree of net economic impact including local and community socio-economic benefits typical of such developments will be provided. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewable of LDP2 in this regard. 6. IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES AND INDIVIDUAL DWELLINGS, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, VISUAL IMPACT, NOISE AND SHADOW FLICKER 6.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including residential amenity, visual impact, noise and shadow flicker have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for renewable developments to be assessed in terms of impacts on communities and individual dwellings, including visual impact, residential amenity noise and shadow flicker (including cumulative). Noise 6.2 ABC Noise Consultant – has concluded that, in general, good practice has been adopted by the applicant, with a few minor issues identified: omission of photos for the noise monitoring location of Maam House; the calibration certificates are omitted; omission of a description of the windshields that were fitted to the noise monitoring equipment (photographs in Appendix 12.1 ‘Baseline Noise Survey Records’ indicate the windshields used were Rion WS-15 type, which is suitable for surveys of this nature); omission of charts showing wind speeds and directions; and the results of the comparative model are not consistent with the results presented by the Applicant and the reasons for this could not be confirmed. It is recommended that the calculations are checked. 6.3 Further information on these aspects should be sought from the applicant, or a suitably worded planning condition included. Following a satisfactory response to the above issues from the applicant, it is considered that there would be no reason to object to the scheme on noise grounds. A suitably worded condition to limit the noise levels, tonality and amplitude modulation should be applied to control noise levels from the proposed development. It is expected that conditions relating to approve the final turbine selection will already be included as it relates to other aspects than noise alone. 6.4 The applicant received the advice from the Council’s Noise Consultant on the 24th of October and has had limited time to provide the clarification sought in Page 52
Page 53
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL advance of completion of this report. This said they are confident that the matter can be resolved in advance of PPSL on the 20th of November and that an update could be provided to Members by way of a Supplementary Report. It should be noted that the late provision of consultation advice on noise was due to an officer error and is not the fault of the applicant. Due to the outstanding clarification, it is not possible to reach a conclusion on noise at time of writing. Shadow Flicker 6.5 A shadow flicker assessment is required when any properties lie within 10 rotor diameters of a wind farm. This is in line with Scottish Government online renewables planning advice on ‘onshore wind turbines’ which states that: “where separation is provided between wind turbines and nearby dwellings (as a rule 10 rotor diameters), ‘shadow flicker’ should not be a problem.” 6.6 The EIAR identified nearby properties where shadow flicker effects might arise. Ten potential properties were identified in locations where shadow flicker effects could arise. Four were identified as actually experiencing shadow flicker effects, three of them are classed as significant: Ladyfield farm, Ladyfield replacement dwelling and Ladyfield barn conversion. 6.7 As significant effects have been identified for these properties' mitigation measures have been identified by the applicant, which will involve automated monitoring which will shut off the relevant turbine(s) at times and conditions when shadow flicker could arise, thus preventing significant effects. Considering this, it is recommended that if consent is granted a shadow flicker mitigation scheme is secured by a planning condition. 6.8 Having due regard to the above it is not possible to reach a conclusion on whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of Noise Impact. The applicant is confident that this can be resolved prior to PPSL committee and Members will be updated with a Supplementary Report. It is therefore recommended that the Council objects on these grounds until this matter is resolved, as the proposal is currently contrary to the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 in this respect. 6.9 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal is acceptable in terms of any potential shadow flicker impact subject to a condition to secure a shadow flicker mitigation scheme and is therefore consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABLDP2 in this respect. 7. SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACTS 7.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how significant landscape and visual impacts have been addressed, recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will generally be considered acceptable. Policy 4 a) - Natural Places of NPF4 states that proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Page 53
Page 54
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against landscape and visual impacts. 7.2 The Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect - has undertaken a review of the landscape and visual effects of the proposal, which is based on examination of the EIAR and visits to the area surrounding the site. 7.3 The proposal – comprises 13 turbines, 180m to blade tip. It would be sited in a productive coniferous forest in Glen Aray to the north of Inveraray. The A819 is aligned through this glen and two access points to the site would be created from this road. Up to 4km of upgraded existing forest tracks and 9.7km of new track would be constructed within the site. Ancillary development includes borrow pits, a substation, and a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). Visible aviation lighting is a requirement and would be fixed to the nacelles and towers of all 13 turbines. A reduced lighting scheme does not appear to have been agreed with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the applicant has made no commitment to mitigation other than a reduction in the intensity of hub lights from 2000 candela to 200 candela in periods of good visibility. Visible aviation lighting is not addressed in the description of the proposal in Chapter 2 of the EIA. Technical Appendix 6.5 provides an assessment of the effect of visible aviation lighting. 7.4 The Design & Access Statement describes the design objectives and the mitigation. Chapter 3 of the EIA describes the site selection and design. At Scoping stage, the scheme comprised 22 turbines, 200m high and the southernmost turbines were omitted to minimise effects on the settlement of Inveraray, Dun na Cuaiche and Inveraray Castle. Key design objectives aimed at minimising landscape and visual effects are set out in Table 3.1 of the EIA. There are some omissions and errors in Chapter 3 of the EIA. Paragraph 3.2.2 fails to mention the presence of the Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) designated landscape focused on the head of Loch Awe in relation to sensitive landscape receptors. The description of mitigation also implies that effects on Dun na Cuaiche would no longer be significant following removal of the southernmost turbines. This is not the case as the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) concludes effects would be significant from this feature (Viewpoint 18). Table 3.1 usefully lists environmental impacts and responses but does not mention the landscape and visual effects of aviation lighting and whether consideration was given to mitigation to reduce the number of turbines requiring lights and the future implementation of an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS) which would significantly reduce the duration of lighting. 7.5 Chapter 14 of the EIA addresses forestry matters. The forest on the site is owned by Argyll Estates and is subject to an existing Long Term Felling Plan. It is noted that the Wind Farm Restocking Plan (Figure 14.7) does not significantly differ from the Baseline Restocking Plan. Compensatory planting of 48.7ha of woodland would be required off-site. 7.6 An Outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) is set out in Technical Appendix 8.4. This sets out outline aims, objectives and prescriptions focused on mire and heath restoration, peatland restoration, semi-natural woodland enhancement and riparian woodland planting on the site. It is proposed to set up a Biodiveristy Management Group (which would include Argyll & Bute Council) to oversee the delivery of the BEMP. Page 54
Page 55
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 7.7 An EIA accompanies the application, the purpose of which is to provide impartial information on the potential environmental effects of a proposal. It is therefore highly unusual for EIA documents to include a cover promoting the credentials of the developer as is done for the Technical Appendices and the Design & Access Statement. 7.8 The Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) - accords with the Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment, Third Edition (GLVIA3). The visualisations are clear and consistent with best practice guidance although it is not clear whether the visualisations from closer viewpoints from the A819 (particularly Viewpoint 2) illustrate the forest felling proposals to accommodate the wind turbines. The Councils Consultant Landscape Architect finds the LVIA to be thorough and fair in its findings and agrees with most of its conclusions of the significance of effects. 7.9 The Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study 2017 – The proposal lies within the Loch Fyne Upland Forest Moor Mosaic Landscape Character Type (LCT) identified in the Argyll & Bute Landscape Wind Energy Capacity Study (2017 Capacity Study). This landscape comprises a narrow band of hills either side of Loch Fyne. It has a varied landform with complex and pronounced hills aligning the north-west shore of Loch Fyne and occurring north of Portavadie. Broader basins and plateaux also occur particularly at the transition with the Craggy Upland LCT. This upland landscape has a simple landcover of forestry and moorland and is sparsely settled. Key sensitivities are note as being more complex and smaller scale landform closer to Loch Fynne and the high visibility of these uplands from roads and settlement including from the A83 a major tourist route. The study concluded that this landscape would have a high sensitivity to turbines > 130m high to blade tip. 7.10 Constraints to development listed in the 2017 Capacity Study include the narrowness of this landscape and its high visibility across Loch Fyne, the more complex landform features which backdrop the settled shores of Loch Fyne and the proximity of parts of these uplands to highly sensitive landscapes including the Kyles of Bute and Knapdale National Scenic Areas and the coastal fringes of Loch Fyne. Potential cumulative effects with other wind farms from elevated viewpoints including from Dun na Cuaiche, the A83 and B8000 and from settlement on the south-eastern side of Loch Fyne are also noted as potential constraints. The 2017 Capacity Study additionally identified potential opportunities for wind energy development in this landscape as comprising the broader shallow basins and more gently undulating plateaux found at the transition with the Craggy Upland LCT which could provide some visual containment of turbines thus limiting effects on more settled areas and the simple landcover of forestry and moorland and absence of landscape designations within the majority of the LCT. 7.11 Effects on landscape character - The Loch Fyne Upland Forest Moor Mosaic LCT, within which the site is located, has a large to medium scale. The rolling hills present in the core of this LCT are largely forested and have a simple landform and landcover pattern. These key characteristics reduce the susceptibility of much of this landscape although the complexity of the landform and landscape pattern increases (and the scale reduces) at the transition of these uplands with the Rocky Mosaic LCT which occurs on the fringes of Loch Fyne. The proposal would comprise very large wind turbines which would overwhelm the scale of Glen Aray, a deeply incised glen which cuts through the Page 55
Page 56
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL uplands to Loch Fyne (illustrated in Viewpoints 1-3). The effects of the proposal on the character of part of this LCT would be major adverse and significant. 7.12 The relative confinement of the proposal within Glen Aray limits the extent of visibility and degree of intrusion on adjoining LCTs. The Councils Consultant Landscape Architect agrees with the LVIA however that significant adverse effects would also occur on parts of the Steep Ridgeland and Mountains LCT 1, the High Tops LCT 1 and the North Loch Awe Craggy Upland LCT 7c. 7.13 Effects on designated landscapes - The proposal is not located in a designated landscape. It lies within 11km of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. The LVIA provides an assessment of effects on the special landscape qualities of the National Park and concludes that effects would not be significant. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs Park Authority confirm their agreement with this in their consultation response. 7.14 The proposal borders the North Argyll Local Landscape Area (LLA) defined in Argyll & Bute Council’s Local Development Plan (formerly known as Area of Panoramic Quality). The East Loch Fyne and West Loch Fyne LLAs lie close, between 5-10km at their closest points, although it is considered that due to the limited visibility of the proposal from these designated landscapes, effects on their character and special qualities would not be significant. 7.15 The LVIA has provided a detailed assessment of effects on the North Argyll LLA. The assessment is hampered by the absence of any citation or other information which provides background on the reasons for designation and a description of character and/or special qualities of the designated area. The LVIA assessment of the magnitude of change associated with the wind farm focuses on the visibility of the proposal rather than providing an analysis of the effects on the character and the special qualities of the designated area. The North Argyll LLA covers an extensive area which varies hugely in its character, and this also makes it difficult to undertake a meaningful assessment of effects on special qualities. The LVIA concludes that there would be some significant adverse effects on the North Argyll LLA although is not specific as to what these effects might be apart from stating that…. ‘The landscape character of the south- western part of the APQ would be redefined’ (paragraph 6.8, under heading significance of effect). The LVIA concludes that the remaining parts of the APQ would not be significantly affected due to the greater separation of the development combined with the influence of existing wind farms to the west of the designated area. 7.16 Viewpoints 1, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 lie within the North Argyll LLA. It is considered that there would be some significant adverse effects on views from parts of the LLA, particularly where the proposed turbines would be seen on the skyline of the hills which contain the scenic basin at the head of Loch Awe. Lower elevation views from open sections of the A85 north-west of St Conan’s Kirk are particularly sensitive in this respect. 7.17 Comparisons have been made between the proposed Upper Sonachan wind farm which was refused on appeal in 2019 with significant effects on the North Argyll Area of Panoramic Quality (now called the LLA in the current LDP) forming one of the key reasons for its refusal. Upper Sonachan comprised 18 turbines, 136.5m high which were located within the designated area and closer than the Ladyfield proposal to key viewpoints along the A83. One of the key differences Page 56
Page 57
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL of the Ladyfield proposal with the Upper Sonachan development is its location slightly behind the upland edge with landform screening turbine bases and consequently reducing their prominence (see Viewpoint 10 from St Conan’s Kirk). Upper Sonachan, although comprising significantly smaller turbines, was located on inward facing slopes around the head of Loch Awe, appearing to ‘fall down’ into the basin. It was also visible from Kilchurn Castle and from other parts of upper Loch Awe. The Ladyfield wind farm proposal would not be visible from the castle and is also less prominently sited than Upper Sonachan. Based on this review, while it is considered some significant adverse effects would occur on views and on the undeveloped nature of the skyline of the scenic island- studded head of Loch Awe, it is not considered that the integrity of the designated area would be compromised given the extent and nature of those effects. 7.18 Visual effects - Theoretical visibility of the proposal is shown on Figures 6.5b and 6.6b of the EIAR. The location of the proposal on the eastern slopes of Glen Aray provides a degree of visual containment with visibility principally concentrated to the north across the head of Loch Awe, across part of the waters of upper Loch Fyne and with patchy areas of visibility from higher hill slopes and summits located on the western edge of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. 7.19 There would be limited visibility from the flatter ground on the north-west shore of Loch Fyne in the Inveraray area. Visibility would also be limited from the south- eastern shores of Loch Fyne between St Catherines and Strachur and where there are views from this area, the turbines would be seen ‘end on’ limiting their horizontal extent which would further minimise effects on visual amenity. Views from Strachur (Viewpoint 8) illustrate the worse-case degree of intrusion within 10km distances from this side of Loch Fyne and turbines 11 and 13 would be particularly prominent in these views. More turbines may be visible further south- west down the loch but seen at distances of >15km which would lessen intrusion. 7.20 Significant adverse effects on views would principally occur from the following locations: • The head of Loch Awe where the proposal would be seen intermittently from the A83 (due to screening by buildings in Lochawe and woodland) and from the railway. There would be no visibility from Kilchurn Castle which is a popular visitor attraction but there would be open views from the grounds to the south of St Conan’s Kirk (VP 10) and from the A83 where it is more open to the west of the Kirk where they would introduce wind turbines to views across the loch where none are presently seen. Views would be more screened from the Cruachan Power Station Visitor Centre (VP17), but open views would occur from the slopes and summit of the Munro hill of Ben Cruachan (VP 12). While a cluster of operational/consented wind farms are/will be visible from the main route/summit of Ben Cruachan either side of the narrowing form of Loch Awe to the south-west, this proposal would be closer to the more scenically rich head of the loch and comprise larger turbines which would increase intrusion when compared with these other developments. • Dun na Cuaiche where turbines 11 and 13 would be particularly prominent and seen at distances of 4.68km (the blades of other turbines at the southern end of the wind farm may also be visible although screening by trees would increase when they are in leaf). The proposal would not impact on the key Page 57
Page 58
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL focus of views along Loch Fyne but would nonetheless impinge on the panoramic views which are a feature of this location and would also detract from long views to the Ben Cruachan massif which contributes to the mountainous landscape setting of the folly. • Beinn Bhuidhe summit A Munro hill which is popular with walkers. The operational Clachan Flats wind farm is located 4.6km distance and while this proposal would be more distant at 9.3km, it would introduce turbines almost twice the height of the 93m high Clachan Flats turbines with a significantly more extensive horizontal extent of the view taken up as all 13 turbines would be seen base to tip in an open upland location. Lighting of the proposed turbines would extend the duration of significant effects for walkers who choose to wild camp overnight or arrive/leave at dawn/dusk. • A819 through Glen Aray Viewpoints 1, 2 and 3 illustrate the proximity of the proposal to this road which is used by both local people and visitors to the area. Views are restricted from much of the A819 between Inverarary and Cladich by roadside vegetation. However, where open views occur close to the proposal, the turbines would appear very close and would overwhelm the viewer because of the way they would fill and dominate views. Turbine 11 and to a lesser degree Turbine 13 would be particularly dominant in Viewpoints 2 and 3. Nearby residential properties will experience similar views. The northern access point created off the A819 is likely to require some clearance of vegetation and could increase visibility. Lighting on hubs and towers will extend the duration of effects experienced from the A819 and from some residential properties in Glen Aray. There are no other turbines of this size located so close to public roads in Argyll. This route is popular with visitors to the area, and this is not acknowledged in the LVIA where a medium level of sensitivity is accorded to road users. 7.21 The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment (RVAA) - identifies 12 residential properties lying within 2km of the proposal. It concludes that significant effects would occur on all 12 of these properties. The Residential Visual Amenity threshold is judged likely to be reached for 4 of these properties, the existing dwellings of Ladyfield Farm and North Tullich and two properties with planning permission for conversion to dwellings at Ladyfield Farm. 7.22 Night-time lighting effects - Technical Appendix 6.5 of the EIA provides an assessment of night-time effects. Visualisations have been generated to show night-time effects from four representative viewpoints at VPs 1, 4, 10 and 15. The assessment concludes that significant adverse effects would arise at VPs 1 (A819) and VP 15 (Beinn Bhuidhe). The conclusions to Technical Appendix 6.5 additionally note that significant effects would arise on night-time views from Dun na Cuaiche. Effects of night-time lighting on residential properties are mentioned on pages 9 and 10 of Technical Appendix 6.5 and (using VP 1 as representative views) it appears to be concluded that residents in Glen Aray would be likely to experience significant effects. It is noted that the detailed assessments of residential visual amenity in Technical Appendix 6.4 do not reference potential night-time effects from residential properties. 7.23 There is an error in the headings and formatting within section 6 of Technical Appendix 6.5 which makes it difficult to understand where the detailed assessment for VP 4 from the track above Inveraray begins. 7.24 Cumulative landscape and visual effects with other proposed wind farms - This proposal has greatest potential to incur significant adverse cumulative effects Page 58
Page 59
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL with the consented Creag Dubh wind farm affecting views from Dun na Cuaiche within the Inveraray Castle GDL, from the Strachur area and views from some of the higher western peaks within the Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park. 7.25 There are many application-stage wind farms within the LVIA study area. It is considered that the Blarghour Revision proposal and An Carr Dubh wind farms have greatest potential to incur significant adverse cumulative effects with this proposal particularly affecting views from Dun na Cuaiche and from Ben Cruachan. 7.26 Conclusions - NPF4 Policy 11e requires project design and mitigation to demonstrate how impacts on communities and significant landscape and visual impacts are addressed. In terms of significant landscape and visual impacts, 11e ii states that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable energy and where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied, they will be acceptable. NPF4 provides no guidance on the definition of what constitutes ‘localised’ effects. 7.27 This proposal would have significant adverse effects on landscape character and on views although its location within Glen Aray would limit the extent and degree of intrusion. The most significant effects would be on views from the A819 where the wind farm would be seen in very close proximity and where views would affect visitors to the region who frequently use this route. There would be some significant adverse effects on views and on the special qualities of part of the North Argyll LLA and views from Dun na Cuaiche and from the Munro hill of Beinn Bhuide would also be significantly affected. 7.28 The Councils Consultant Landscape Architect considers that 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. 7.29 The applicant should also consider more ambitious landscape and biodiversity mitigation and enhancement proposals in line with the aims of NPF4 Policy 3. The proposal 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 and more should be done to improve the angular northern and south- eastern margins of productive forest. The planting of more extensive native woodlands should form part of the BEMP and Wind Farm Forest Plan. Biodiversity and landscape enhancement measures should not be confined to the proposed 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. 7.30 The effects of visible aviation lighting are concerning particularly given the large 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 Page 59
Page 60
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 7.31 The Applicant provided a response to the key points raised by the Councils Landscape Consultant. In summary, they advise that they have sought to take a positive and reasoned position in their response to the LVIA consultation response. They have explained why they consider the reduction or removal of turbines is not proportionate considering the mitigation work already undertaken and the consequences of taking further action. However, they have taken further steps to provide additional mitigation in the form of micrositing and aviation lighting reductions. They commit to revisiting habitat restoration opportunities during detailed design. 7.32 The Consultant Landscape Architect – advised that the application comprises 13 turbines, 180m high to blade tip. The scheme comprised 22 turbines, 200m high at scoping and the southern-most turbines were omitted with the aim of minimising effects on the settlement of Inveraray, Dun na Cuaiche and Inveraray Castle. Like many wind farm proposals in their initial stages, the number of turbines originally proposed was overly ambitious and appears not to have been informed by analysis of landscape and visual constraints. The 22 turbines proposed was clearly an inappropriate scheme in terms of the site and its context. This approach to siting and design, is adopted by many wind farm developers and gives the impression that subsequent mitigation appears generous. The applicant stresses the ‘improvements’ made to early proposal in their letter and the absence of local objection to the design, both factors are considered irrelevant. It is not considered the applicant has gone far enough in sensitively designing this application as required by NPF4. 7.33 The July 2024 review of the proposal noted key design objectives aimed at minimising landscape and visual effects are set out in the EIA. It also noted that there were some omissions and errors in Chapter 3 of the EIA. The description of mitigation in 3.4.2 is of relevance in that it implies that effects on Dun na Cuaiche would no longer be significant following the removal of southern-most turbines within the scheme; this is not the case as the LVIA concludes that effects would be significant from this feature (Viewpoint 18). The applicant’s response does not correct or even mention this error. 7.34 The applicant’s response notes that the review ‘makes no reference to unacceptable impacts’. It is not clear what is meant by this statement. It is not appropriate for a landscape professional to provide a view on the acceptability or unacceptability of a proposal. Acceptability can only be determined by the planning/consents authority once all the benefits and disbenefits of a proposal are considered i.e.) not just landscape and visual impacts. 7.35 The applicant considers it ‘unsuitable’ to reduce the heights of Turbines 11 and 13 due to availability issues. If this is truly the case, then these turbines should be omitted. It is not considered that micro-siting these turbines would achieve adequate mitigation in terms of negating significant adverse effects on Dun na Cuaiche. Omission of these turbines would result in a scheme comprising 11 wind turbines. There are many similarly sized schemes in Scotland which are obviously considered to be viable else they would not be proposed. It is inappropriate for the applicant to raise the matter of disbenefits to the local Page 60
Page 61
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL community. This is obviously trying to sway local opinion in the same way demonstrated using the cover to the Design & Access Statement which promotes the developer’s credentials in providing community benefit. 7.36 Applicant further response to advice of Consultant Landscape Architect – advise they remain firmly of the opinion that Ladyfield Renewable Energy Park would result in localised impacts, accords with NPF4 Policy 11 (and other NPF4 policies) and is acceptable. The scheme would make a valuable contribution to ambitious national climate change targets, contributing to domestic energy generation and energy security. Regarding the 22-turbine scheme, it was put forward via scoping to agree EIA methodology and survey approach. EIA is an iterative process of continued assessment and reflection of site design to reduce impacts that are identified over time, a process resulting in the submitted scheme design of 13 turbines. This in their view demonstrates appropriate ‘design mitigation’ – a key consideration in NPF4 Policy 11. 7.37 The commentary about Dun na Cuaiche in EIAR paragraph 3.4.2 is accepted, yet the technical assessment (in EIAR Chapter 6) was noted, in the consultant’s original response, as “generally thorough and fair in its findings…”. There would be a significant visual effect at this location, however they would highlight that the primacy of views to the south over the Loch would remain unaffected. Furthermore, Historic Environment Scotland do not object to the application. The applicant also highlights the reduced aviation lighting scheme, and advise they remain committed to revisiting restoration opportunities during detailed design. 7.38 Finally, they advise that their community engagement work is a key part of their ethos, and they have built genuine relationships in the local community over many years. Nevertheless, and whilst they stand behind comments made previously, should the Scottish Ministers feel that a reduction of T11 and T13 to 150m to tip be necessary to make the scheme acceptable, they would accept such a scheme change. 7.39 NatureScot have provided the ECU with the following landscape and visual advice. The proposal would introduce wind farm development directly southwest of the Argyll & Bute Council North Argyll Local Landscape Area (LLA), approximately 4.7km north of Inveraray. The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) is located approximately 11km south of the proposal. The closest operational wind farm Clachan Flats (nine turbines with a blade tip height of approximately 93m) is located approximately 6.3km east of the Proposal. 7.40 If consented, the proposal would bring development of this nature closer to landscape and visual receptors west of Clachan Flats. This would include the introduction of views of turbines to some areas not currently influenced by the presence of operational wind farms. The proposal is likely to significantly affect: • The North Argyll Local Landscape Area; • Host Landscape Character Type (LCT) 40. Craggy Upland – Argyll, neighbouring and nearby LCTs 39. Plateau Moor and Forest – Argyll to the south and LCT 53. Rocky Coastland – Argyll to the west; and • Visual receptors: o Within the North Argyll Local Landscape Area including views experienced from summit Beinn Bhuide east of the site. Page 61
Page 62
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL o Views experienced from local landmarks including St Conan’s Kirk and from Loch Awe. o Sequential routes including views experienced from around Inveraray Core Paths and along sections of the A819. 7.41 However, on balance taking account of NPF4 policy; the fact that the proposal is not located within nor close to a national landscape designation (the LLTNP would not experience significant effects); and the presence of other nearby operational, consented and proposed wind farms, NatureScot advise that the impacts are unlikely to raise issues of national interest. 7.42 Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) have advised the ECU that they do not object to this application. Officer’s Conclusion 7.43 Based on the advice of the Council’s Consultant Landscape Architect, NatureScot, Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park and the fact that no objection has been received from Historic Environment Scotland it is concluded that the proposal does not warrant an objection on landscape and visual grounds. This however is subject to the ECU considering the recommendations of the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect in respect to further mitigation and a condition to secure an Aircraft Detection Lighting System (ADLS). In terms of the mitigation the applicant has stated in their most recent response that “should the Scottish Ministers feel that a reduction of T11 and T13 to 150m to tip be necessary to make the scheme acceptable, they would accept such a scheme change”. 7.44 Having due regard to the above and consideration being given to the suggested mitigation (including a condition to secure ADLS (Aircraft Detection Lighting System) lighting) it is concluded that the proposal complies with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 4 – Natural Places of NPF4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 8. IMPACTS ON TOURISM AND RECREATION 8.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 does not require impacts on tourism to be considered. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on tourism and recreation. 8.2 Tourism – Policy 11 of NPF4 does not include a requirement for the impact of proposals on tourism to be assessed. However, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP does. In Argyll & Bute the landscape is regarded as being a particularly valued asset both in terms of its intrinsic qualities and in terms of its value to the tourism economy. For all types of development, the maintenance of landscape character is an important facet of decision-making in the countryside in Argyll & Bute, regardless of the scale of development proposed. 8.3 As Tourism and Landscape & Visual matters are intrinsically linked, and there is little evidence to demonstrate whether wind farms adversely affect tourism, it is Page 62
Page 63
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL considered that such impacts are covered in the landscape and visual impact assessment of the proposal. 8.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 04 – Sustainable Development and 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of ABLDP2 in this respect. 9. PUBLIC ACCESS 9.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on public access are addressed, including impact on long distance walking, and cycling routes and scenic routes. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on public access, including impact on long distance walking and cycling routes and those scenic routes identified in the NPF. Policy 32 – Active Travel of LDP2 requires active travel and recreation to be integrated in developments from the start of the wider design process and existing active travel networks should be safeguarded and integrated with the development. 9.2 There are several recreational routes, paths and trails within the area, however, none of these are located within the site. The path C201 – Dun Na Cuaiche is the nearest Core Path to the site and is located approximately 4.1km to the south of the nearest turbine (T13). The EIA concludes that recreational routes and core paths will not experience any direct impacts – closures or disruptions – because of the construction of the development. 9.3 ABC Core Paths – At time of writing no response has been received. 9.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables; and Policy 32 - Active Travel of the ABLDP2. 10. AVIATION AND DEFENCE INTERESTS INCLUDING SEISMOLOGICAL RECORDING 10.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigations demonstrates how impacts on aviation and defence interests including seismological recording have been addressed. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires impacts on aviation and defence interests and seismological recording to be addressed. Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes of LDP2 stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would compromise the safe operation of an Aerodrome or Technical Site or constrain their present or future operations. 10.2 Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) – have advised the ECU that, subject to conditions to secure an Aviation Lighting Scheme and Aviation Charting and Safety Management details the MOD has no objection. Page 63
Page 64
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 10.3 National Air Traffic Services Safeguarding (NATS), Glasgow Airport, and Glasgow Prestwick Airport – have advised the ECU they have no objection to the proposal. 10.4 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Ministry of Defence, it is concluded the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes, of the ABLDP2 in this respect. 11. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING INSTALLATIONS 11.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, have been addressed particularly, ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on telecommunications and broadcasting installations, particularly ensuring that transmission links are not compromised. 11.2 BT have advised the ECU that they have no objection. 11.3 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on telecommunications, broadcasting installations and transmission links (including cumulative impacts) and is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11- Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 in this respect. 12. ROAD TRAFFIC AND ADJACENT TRUNK ROADS 12.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on road traffic and on adjacent trunk roads have been addressed, including during construction. Policy 30 – the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on road traffic and impacts on adjacent trunk roads. Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes of LDP2 acceptance of development utilising new and existing public roads, private roads and private access regimes is subject to road safety and street design issues being addressed to the satisfaction of the Roads Authority and the Planning Authority. Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads requires that accesses which connect to or impact significantly on a Trunk Road require consultation with Transport Scotland. 12.2 Transport Scotland (TS) have advised the ECU they have no objection subject to conditions relating to approval of abnormal loads route; accommodation measures for abnormal load route; additional signing or temporary traffic control measures; details of blade lifter technology; and a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Advisory notes are also provided in relation requirements to undertake works within the trunk road boundary. 12.3 Network Rail have advised the ECU they object to this application in its current form, as additional information is required to fully assess and mitigate the Page 64
Page 65
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL impacts of traffic movements - because of the proposal - over Annat West Level Crossing. Network Rail may be able to withdraw its objection, subject to the provision of an additional Traffic Assessment/Statement from the developer. 12.4 ABC’s Roads & Amenity Services have advised they have no objection subject to conditions to secure: full details for all locations of carriageway widening for over run areas; a detailed condition survey of the A819 between the A85 Tyndrum - Oban Trunk Road / A819 Inveraray - Dalmally Road junction and the A83 Tarbet - Campbeltown Trunk Road / A819 Inveraray - Dalmally Road junction (recorded by means of video and photographs); Traffic Management Plan; all street furniture that has to be removed, to be replaced with new; site access constructed as per the Council’s standard detail drawing SD 08/001 Rev a, after all abnormal loads have stopped; and connection of site access to public road, sightlines to be 160 x 2.40 x 1.05 metres. Furthermore, that a Road Opening Permit will be required and there should be no surface water discharge. 12.5 Having due regard to the above, subject to the conditions recommended by the Area Roads Manager and Transport Scotland it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes and Policy 38 – Construction Standards for Public Roads in this regard. It is recommended that the conditions required by Area Roads and Amenity Services are attached to any consent granted by the ECU. Note: the outstanding matter relating to Annat West Level Crossing will require to be addressed by the ECU prior to reaching a decision. It is located out with Argyll & Bute and is a Network Rail asset. 13. HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 13.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how impacts on the historic environment have been addressed. Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4 intent is to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts on the historic environment, including scheduled monuments, listed buildings and their settings. Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment, Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments, Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes, and Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance support the key policies and provide guidance on assessing development proposals against heritage impacts. 13.2 Historic Environment Scotland (HES) - have advised the ECU that the proposals do not raise historic environment issues of national significance and therefore they do not object. 13.3 West of Scotland Archaeology Service – have advised that they have no objection subject to a condition to secure a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation to be submitted by the Page 65
Page 66
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL applicant for the written approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with WoSAS. 13.4 Having due regard to the above subject to the condition recommended by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy and Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment; 19 – Scheduled Monuments; 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes; and 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance of the ABLDP2 14. HYDROLOGY, THE WATER ENVIRONMENT AND FLOOD RISK 14.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrates how effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk have been addressed. Policy 30 – Supporting the Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on hydrology, the water environment and flood risk (including cumulative). Policy 55 - Flooding of LDP2 provides guidance on the type of development that will be permissible within specific flood risk areas. Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals requires flood risk assessments, and drainage impact assessments, to accompany applications where required. 14.2 The Council’s Flood Prevention Officer – has advised that they have no objection subject to conditions to ensure that watercourse crossings are designed so there is no reduction in pre-development channel cross sectional area ideally to pass the 1 in 200 years plus climate change flood event; and, surface water drainage is designed in accordance with CIRIA C753 and ensures that post development runoff is attenuated to the 1 in 2 year greenfield runoff rate. The surface water drainage should be in operation prior to the start of construction. 14.3 Having due regard to the above, subject to the recommended conditions it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables, Policy 55 – Flooding; and Policy 57 Risk Appraisals of ABLDP2. 15. BIODIVERSITY 15.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how impacts on biodiversity, including birds have been addressed. Policy 3 – Biodiversity of NPF4 requires development proposals to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. Policy 5 – Soils of NPF4 supports the generation of energy from renewable sources that optimises the contribution of the area to GHG emissions reduction targets on peatland, carbon-rich soils, and priority peatland. A detailed site-specific assessment will be required for development on peatland which will include the net effects of the development on climate emissions and loss of carbon. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires all applications for wind turbine developments to be assessed against impacts arising from effects on the natural heritage, including birds and to be assessed against impacts on carbon rich soils, using Page 66
Page 67
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL the carbon calculator (including cumulative) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity requires proposals to incorporate, safeguard and enhance existing site biodiversity wherever possible. 15.2 NatureScot have advised the ECU that there are natural heritage interests of international importance on the site with relation to Glen Etive and Glen Fyne Special Protection Area, but their advice is that these will not be adversely affected by the proposal. Regarding biodiversity, they have also provided advice for the ECU regarding operational and construction impacts on ornithology (Schedule 1 birds), the outline biodiversity enhancement management plan and priority peatland habitats. 15.3 RSPB Scotland – have advised the ECU they do not object and welcome the siting of most of the infrastructure within commercial forestry plantation They do however consider that proposals for the delivery of biodiversity enhancement require further work on the following issues: cumulative development pressures and grid connection route. Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) 15.4 SEPA have advised that the overall impact on GWDTE is assessed as mostly minor, the exception is a loss of 9.08% of the W4b habitat which is categorised as highly groundwater dependant wet woodland. This is due to upgrading a stretch of existing track. SEPA would prefer if this were avoided, however, they understand if it is not possible. Peat 15.5 SEPA initially submitted a holding objection to the ECU in relation to peat. They requested that the applicant provide: the methodology for the peat surveys; provision of all peat depths as per their scoping requirements; and re-siting of the track between T1 and T3 to avoid deep peat. The Applicant provided a response to the ECU regarding the concerns raised by SEPA. Thereafter SEPA removed their objection regarding peat issues and track alignment. Peat Landslide Hazard Risk Assessment 15.6 Ironside Farrar initially advised the ECU that clarification was required in respect to extent of works required to upgraded track; further probing; confirmation that the Overhead Line had been considered; and the A819 score. The Applicant provided clarifications. Ironside Farrar have advised the ECU that the Applicants response adequately address the queries raised. They note that commitment has been given to additional probing and site investigation at construction stage in the southwest and vicinity of the OHL out with the western boundary and consider that this is appropriate. The assessment can now be considered complete with no further work/response required at this stage. 15.7 The Council’s Local Biodiversity Officer (LBO) – has provided the following advice and recommendations. 15.8 Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA - notes the applicant has been in discussions with NatureScot and RSPB regarding the potential impact of the proposal on the Page 67
Page 68
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Glen Etive and Glen Fyne SPA Qualifying Feature of golden eagles. The applicant has included results of the Habitats Regulations Appraisal (HRA) with an overall conclusion ‘No adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA are predicted. ‘The Local Biodiversity Officer agrees with the findings in this report and the mitigation measures to locate infrastructure at least 350m from any known nest site of Schedule 1 breeding species and locate wind turbines at least c.300m from the SPA to avoid direct habitat loss. The Local Biodiversity Officer also welcomes the aims within the outline Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) to maintain or increase the productivity of locally breeding golden eagles through mire and heath restoration to enhance habitat for golden eagle prey species. 15.9 Predicted Habitat Losses and Impacts - welcomes the habitat and peatland enhancement aims within the outline BEMP and the continued monitoring of habitat and peatland restoration throughout the lifetime of the wind farm. 15.10 Peatland - welcomes the undertaking of peat probe surveys to determine where the areas of deeper peat are present and the inclusion of a Peat Management Plan (PMP) and the proposed aims within the BEMP for peatland enhancement and monitoring throughout the operational period of the wind farm. It is recommended that floatation tracks are used on areas of deeper peat to avoid disturbance. 15.11 Bats - welcomes the avoidance of bat preferred habitat features with a minimum 50m buffer maintained between wind turbine blade tips and the nearest woodland edge. I also welcome the enhancement of woodland habitats within the site to benefit bats and provision of bat boxes. It is recommended that 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. 15.12 Otter - welcomes the inclusion of a Species Protection Plan (SPP) to include pre-construction surveys. 15.13 Protected Species - note there a Conservation Management Plan was prepared by Argyll Estate in 2004 to include conservation and management of estate woodlands to benefit red squirrel conservation, and welcome the following to benefit red squirrels: enhancement of woodland habitats within the site as, outlined in the BEMP provision of habitat through retainment of small extents of existing conifer plantation, provision of red squirrel boxes, and monitoring of boxes for occupancy by a suitably licensed ecologist. Also welcome the enhancement of woodland habitats within the site, as outlined in the BEMP 15.14 Fish - welcomes the inclusion of an outline Construction Enhancement Management Plan (CEMP) to implement appropriate mitigations including: A 50m buffer for any infrastructure or construction activity around all watercourses; no instream works to occur between October and the end of May to minimise potential impact of breeding fish; and appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) to conduct appropriate surveys and assessments. 15.15 Ornithology - welcomes the embedded mitigations proposed in the design layout process to include siting of structures in existing forestry structure, at least 350m from any known nest site of Schedule 1 breeding bird, c.350m from the Glen Page 68
Page 69
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Etive and Glen Fyne SPA, and 300m from any known black grouse lekking site. They also welcome the implementation of a Breeding Bird Protection Plan (BBPP) to include pre-construction surveys by the ECoW. 15.16 Black Grouse - welcome pre-construction surveys for lekking black grouse to be undertaken during March to May as part of the BBPP with appropriate mitigation measures implemented. Welcome a 750m buffer between infrastructure and black grouse leks and no construction work taking place within two hours of dawn. Also welcome enhancement of suitable habitat and connectivity in the outline BEMP, as well as ongoing monitoring of black grouse populations through lek count surveys for the remainder of the operational period of the wind farm. Particular attention should be paid to the lekking site within 300m of the proposed T13 wind turbine where 2 male black grouse were observed lekking on one occasion. This would determine if the lek site is still in use and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. It is noted fencing may be used to exclude deer to allow habitat restoration to such a time the trees and shrubs are established. Despite the mitigation measures to mark it to reduce collision risks and include a wide mesh stock fence to prevent potential trapping of young black grouse chicks, there is still a risk of collision. It is recommended that 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. 15.17 Greenshank - welcome the implementation of a BBPP to include pre- construction surveys during the greenshank breeding season (April to July) and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures of a 500m buffer of any active nests, feeding lochs or dependent young and construction activity. Also welcome the proposed habitat enhancement in the BEMP to benefit breeding greenshank and ongoing monitoring of the species for the remainder of the operational period of the wind farm. 15.18 Biodiversity Enhancement Management Plan (BEMP) - welcome the following aims within the plan: Maintain, restore and enhance the Annex I habitats (blanket bog and dwarf shrub heath) within the site; Maintain or increase the productivity of locally breeding golden eagles; Maintain or increase the local population of black grouse and increase connectivity between lek sites; Maintain or increase the local population of breeding greenshank; Enhance woodland habitats within the site to benefit protected species such as red squirrel, pine marten and bats; and Provide an overall increase in biodiversity and increased resilience to flooding, wildfires and adverse effects of climate change within the site. Note there is a current deer management plan through the Argyll Estates which includes an annual cull of red, sika and roe deer present within the area. This would benefit natural regeneration of habitat as well as proposed new planting. 15.19 Species Protection Plan (SPP) - welcome the inclusion of the plan to include: Implementation of an ECoW; Provision of Toolbox talks to all construction staff and contractors; Conduction of pre-construction surveys; Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures where necessary 15.20 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) - welcome the appointment of an ECoW prior to construction and throughout works where necessary Page 69
Page 70
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 15.21 Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board (ADSFB) - advised the ECU they are mindful of the recent IUCN reclassification of Atlantic salmon in Great Britain to ‘endangered.’ They therefore urge that any permissions given for the development include pre, during and post construction monitoring of the water environment and fish populations of the River Aray and its tributary streams. Furthermore, that the developer maintains a line of communication with Argyll Fisheries Trust throughout the construction phase to provide them with assurances that full protection of their interests is maintained. 15.22 Having due regard to the above, subject to consideration of the recommendations made by the Local Biodiversity Officer by the ECU and the conditions recommended by consultees being attached in the event that consent is granted it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy, 3 Biodiversity, 5 – Soils and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of and 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources of LDP2 16. TREES, WOODS, AND FORESTS 16.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how impacts on trees, woods and forests have been addressed. Policy 6 – Forestry, woodland, and Trees of NPF4 intent is to protect and expand forests, woodland, and trees. Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland, and Trees of LDP2 states that there is a strong presumption in favour of protecting our woodland resources. Policy 78 – Woodland Removal of LDP2 states that proposals that would involve the removal of woodland resources will be assessed against the criteria for determining the acceptability of woodland removal, in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. Where this assessment concludes that compensatory planting would be appropriate, developers will need to provide for this in accordance with the advice in the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy. 16.2 Scottish Forestry initially advised the ECU that they required further information from the applicant in relation to restock species; ancient native woodland; a native woodland plan; reconsideration of temporary works; and compensatory planting, Advice was also provided on the consenting route. The Applicant provided further clarification and Scottish Forestry have since confirmed that they are satisfied with the proposal subject to a condition to secure compensatory planting. 16.3 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to the condition recommended by Scottish Forestry being attached in the event that the proposal receives consent it is consistent with the provisions of Policies 11 – Energy and 6 – Forestry, woodland and Trees of NPF4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables; 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees and 78 – Woodland Removal of the LDP2 17. MINERALS 17.1 Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 states that development proposals for borrow pits will only be supported where: the proposal is tied to a specific project and is time- limited; the proposal complies with the mineral extraction criteria in Policy 33 taking into account the temporary nature of the development; and Page 70
Page 71
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL appropriate restoration proposals are enforceable and Policy 31 – Minerals of LDP2 states that proposals for mineral extraction will generally be supported for borrow pits where the proposal is found to be acceptable after being assessed against National Planning Framework 4 Policy 33 criterion e). 17.2 It is the intention to source aggregate for the construction of site access tracks, crane hardstanding areas, and upgrades of existing forestry tracks from the on- site borrow pit, rather than an off-site quarry, which has the advantage of reducing the number of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) on public roads. An existing quarry is located on site and has been identified for extension. 17.3 Having due regard to the above taking into account that the proposed borrow pit is tied to the proposal it is concluded that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 33 – Minerals of NPF4 and Policy 31 – Minerals of the ABLDP2 in this regard, subject to a condition to secure details of the borrow pit and a borrow pit restoration plan. 18. DECOMMISSIONING, SITE RESTORATION AND QUALITY OF SITE RESTORATION PLANS 18.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how proposals for the decommissioning of developments, including ancillary infrastructure, and site restoration have been addressed. It also requires that project design and mitigation demonstrate how the quality of site restoration plans have been addressed including the measures in place to safeguard or guarantee availability of finances to effectively implement those plans. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 requires consideration to be given to the long-term environmental management of the site. 18.2 The proposal would have an operational life of up to 40 years from the date of commissioning. At the end of the operational period, it would be decommissioned and the turbines and electrical equipment dismantled and removed. Any alternative to this action would be subject to a further consenting process. 18.3 Decommissioning would involve dismantling and removal of the wind turbines and electrical equipment; reinstatement of the turbine areas and associated hardstanding; and; demolition and removal of control building and compound. The access tracks will be retained in situ at decommissioning for use by the landowner. The cables will also be left in situ. Overall, it is estimated that the decommissioning period would be 12 months. It is recommended that this matter is covered by planning conditions consistent with other projects across Argyll & Bute in the event that the proposal obtains consent from the ECU. 18.4 Having due regard to the above it is concluded that subject to an appropriate condition being attached if the proposal receives consent the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 and Policy 30 - The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 19. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Page 71
Page 72
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 19.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that project design and mitigation will demonstrate how cumulative impacts have been addressed. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the LDP2 also requires cumulative impacts to be addressed. Any cumulative impacts which have been identified are covered in the preceding sections of this report. 20. RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION TARGETS AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGETS. 20.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that, in considering the impacts of the proposal, significant weight will be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises of NPF4 requires that when considering all development proposals significant weight will be given to the global climate and nature crises. Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 require all renewable developments to be assessed against the scale of contribution to renewable energy generation targets and greenhouse gas emissions. 20.2 Renewable Energy Generation Targets - The proposal would consist of up to 13 wind turbines, each with a rated capacity of approximately 4.5 MW (based on candidate turbine), therefore the overall installed capacity of the wind farm would be approximately 58.5MW, as well as including up to 41.4MW of storage capacity with a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), which could contribute to the Scottish Governments minimum targets for having 20GW of onshore wind operational by 2030. 20.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets -. The Proposed Development would result in the production of approximately 6,641,482 MWh over its operational lifetime 40 years), displacing approximately 2,869,120 tonnes of fossil-fuel mix generation equivalent carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and therefore causing a positive environmental effect. Balancing this with the carbon losses associated with the proposal (from turbine manufacture, forestry felling, peatland disturbance, for example), the estimated payback period for the Proposed Development is approximately 4.7 years if it displaces energy generated from grid-mix electricity generation (plus an additional 0.52 years if the BESS capacity is included in the calculations). Over this time, the carbon dioxide emissions of the proposal are cancelled out by the carbon savings, and through the rest of the operational period would result in a net saving of carbon dioxide emissions, thereby mitigating climate change. 20.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policies 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crisis and 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policies 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables and 04 – Sustainable Development of LDP2 21. GRID CAPACITY & ENERGY STORAGE 21.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that grid capacity should not constrain renewable energy development. It is for developers to agree connections to the grid with the relevant network operator. Furthermore, that development proposals for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported, which include energy storage. Policy 30 – The Page 72
Page 73
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Sustainable Growth of Renewables of LDP2 requires the Council to have regard to the opportunities for energy storage. 21.2 Grid Capacity - Connection to Electricity Grid - The grid connection would be routed through existing forest tracks and within the A819, to a new substation on the transmission system located at Creag Dubh, approximately 3km to the north of the site’s northern boundary, on the western side of the A819. The grid connection does not form part of this Application and is subject to a future application subject to the development receiving planning consent. 21.3 Energy storage – The project will have a BESS with a capacity up to 41.4 MW located adjacent to the on-site substation on the same compound. This will be able to store excess power generated by the wind farm and release the power on to the grid when the wind drops. Inclusion of a battery within the scheme increases the sustainability of the power generated. Energy storage enables renewable integration, helps to balance supply and demand, and enhances the security of supply. 21.4 Having due regard to the above it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Policy 11 – Energy of NPF 4, and Policy 30 – The Sustainable Growth of Renewables of the ABLDP2 in respect to Grid Capacity and Energy Storage. 22. PERPETUITY 22.1 Policy 11 – Energy of NPF4 requires that consents for proposals may be time limited. Areas identified for wind farms are, however, expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. It is acknowledged that areas identified for wind farms are expected to be suitable for use in perpetuity. However, as the expected operational life of the proposal is 40 years from the date of commissioning, should consent be granted, Officers would expect it to be time limited to 40 years to reflect the life of the wind farm as detailed in the EIAR. 23. CONCLUSION 23.1 This proposal is classed as “Strategic Renewable Electricity Generation” - a National Development, in terms of the Spatial Strategy given its capacity to generate and store more than 50MW. In principle, there is support for this scale of development given its importance in the delivery of Scotland’s Spatial Strategy. However, such projects are still required to be assessed against the provisions of the Development Plan, which now consists of National Planning Framework 4 and the Argyll & Bute Local Development Plan 2. 23.2 The lead Development Plan policies support renewable energy development in principle but require that proposals be assessed against the criterion detailed in this report. While the weight to be given to each of the considerations is a matter for the decision maker, NPF4 is clear that significant weight will require to be placed on the contribution of the proposal to renewable energy generation targets and on greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. However, a balance still requires to be reached in terms of the impact of the development. 23.3 In relation to landscape and visual impacts NPF4 advises that where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been applied such effects Page 73
Page 74
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL will be considered acceptable. However, NPF4 must be read as a whole, and detailed consideration given to linked policies. Policy 4 (Natural Places) – sets out that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Whilst it is considered that this proposal will have a significant landscape and visual impact, it is not considered that it warrants an objection from the Council subject to consideration of the mitigation suggested by the Councils Landscape Consultant by the ECU. In relation to Biodiversity, it is also considered that the recommendations of the Local Biodiversity Officer should also be considered. 23.4 The Scottish Government gives considerable commitment to renewable energy and encourages Planning Authorities to support the development of wind farms where they can operate successfully in appropriate locations. This is not however blanket support without qualification. In considering the appropriateness of the development, significant weight has been given to these matters. 23.5 In conclusion, it is recommended by Officers that the Council does not object to this proposal. Prior to reaching a decision the Energy Consents Unit should consider the mitigation recommended by the Councils Consultant Landscape Architect and the recommendations of the Councils Local Biodiversity Officer. Any conditions recommended by consultees should be included in any consent granted by Scottish Ministers. 24. RECOMMENDATION 24.1 That the ECU be notified accordingly that: (1) Argyll & Bute Council objects to the proposal on the grounds that there are unresolved noise issues, and it is not possible to reach a conclusion on the proposal's acceptability in this regard at this time. If these matters are resolved Argyll & Council will withdraw this objection. (2) 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 Page 74
Page 75
LDP2 format template March 4th 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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 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. (3) 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. (4) Argyll & Bute Council recommends that all conditions recommended by consultees should be included in any Consent Page 75
Page 76
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 77
© Crown Copyright and database right 2024 All rights reserved. OS license (customer) account number AC0000849384 O 1:37,000 0 340 680170 Meters Location Plan Relative to Planning Application: 24/00053/S36 Page 77
Page 78
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 79
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: 24/00462/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Mr Gerald Biagi Proposal: Change of Use from scrap yard (Sui Generis) and to Class 5 to create a new commercial garage Site Address: Land Behind Viewfield Main Road Cardross Argyll And Bute DECISION ROUTE Committee Decision under Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Change of Use from yard (Sui Generis) and to Class 5 to create a new commercial garage (ii) Other specified operations • N/A (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Scottish Environment Protection Agency - 03.04.2024 - Defer decision Scottish Environment Protection Agency - 20.06.2024 – No objections Roads Helensburgh And Lomond - 22.04.2024 - Defer decision Roads Helensburgh And Lomond - 29.05.2024 – Defer decision Roads Helensburgh And Lomond - 09.07.2024 – No objections Environmental Health - Helensburgh & Lomond - 19.07.2024 – No objections subject to conditions Scottish Rights Of Way And Access Society - 11.04.2024 - Defer decision Scottish Rights Of Way And Access Society - 05.11.2024 – No objection Page 79 Agenda Item 6
Page 80
Flood Risk Assessor - 23.04.2024 - No objections Flood Risk Assessor – 25.09.2024 - No objections (D) HISTORY: None (E) PUBLICITY: Advert Type: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application Expiry Date: 02.05.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Objection Dr Bill Deans Kirkside Church Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 18.04.2024 Judith Ibrahmi 17 Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross Dumbarton 22.04.2024 Pauline Sargent 16 Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross Dumbarton 18.04.2024 David Sargent Dalnair Main Road Cardross Dumbarton 15.04.2024 Laura Muir Flat 12A Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross 22.04.2024 T C Pritchard Flat 12A Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross 17.04.2024 L J Pritchard Flat 12A Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross 17.04.2024 Donald MacDonald 18 Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross Dumbarton 16.04.2024 Sheena MacDonald 18 Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross Dumbarton 16.04.2024 Janet Reece Flat 10 Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross 16.04.2024 Malcolm McGilp Riversdale Church Avenue Cardross Dumbarton Andrea Steele McLean Kames Main Road Cardross Dumbarton Mark Farmer Flat 16 Cedarwood Court Main Road Cardross 16.04.2024 Support Sheenah Goodman 2 Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 16.04.2024 Calum Murray 2 Darleith Road Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute 19.04.2024 Craig Mcluskey 31 gibson street Dumbarton G82 2ef 19.04.2024 Ross Biagi 50 Manse Brae Rhu Helensburgh Argyll And Bute Andrew Gillespie 29 Barrs Terrace Cardross Dumbarton Argyll And Bute Lesley Sutton 37 Camperdown Court Helensburgh Argyll And Bute G84 9HH 16.04.2024 Stephanie McGrath 50 Manse Brae Rhu Helensburgh Argyll And Bute Representation Patrick Trust Beaumaris Church Avenue Cardross Dumbarton 18.04.2024 Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of objections: Page 80
Page 81
• Concern that the proposed building will be out of keeping with the surrounding built environment Comment: Please see assessment below • Concern in regards to the proposed buildings height in terms of overshadowing Comment: As above • Concern in regards to the proposed buildings materiality Comment: As above • Concern in regards to access and parking Comment: The local roads area manager has been consulted and has noted that they have no objections to the proposals • Concern in regards to pedestrian safety Comment: As above • Concern in regards to potential overspill parking utilising public parking Comment: As above • Concern that the proposed use as a commercial garage would cause a disturbance and nuisance to nearby residential properties Comment: Environmental health have been consulted on the proposals and have noted several safeguarding conditions that should be attached to any approval • Note that the existing site has a history in regard to anti-social behaviour, fires and issues with vermin & litter Comment: This is noted, however, this is not a material planning consideration • Note that the proposed site is being used as a scrap yard without consent and was formerly private garden space / a dairy business Comment: This is noted and will only be investigated if this application is not successful • Note that the proposed commercial garage would not be of benefit to the local community Comment: This is noted, however, this is not a material planning consideration • Concern in regards to flooding Comment: SEPA and the flood risk consultants have both been consulted on the proposals and noted that they do not have any objections to the proposal Page 81
Page 82
• Note that there is an existing garage within the village and therefore an additional garage is not required Comment: This is noted, however, this is not a material planning consideration • Concern regarding weekend work occurring at the premises Comment: Environmental health has been consulted on the proposals and have noted several safeguarding conditions that should be attached to any approval • Concern regarding potential overlooking Comment: Please see assessment below • Concern regarding the surrounding stone wall being damaged as a result of the proposed development Comment: This is noted, however, this is not a material planning consideration and would be dealt with as a private civil matter • Concern regarding potential disturbance causing by the construction period Comment: Environmental health has been consulted on the proposals and have noted several safeguarding conditions that should be attached to any approval • Concern regarding potential air pollution Comment: As above (iii) Summary of support; • Note that the current site is an eye-sore Comment: This is noted • Note that the proposed commercial garage would be of benefit to the local community Comment: This is noted (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: No Page 82
Page 83
(iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: D&A statement submitted that contains; site description, the proposals, the sustainability checklists, local considerations, site context and the surrounding built development context. Yes (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist Yes Yes (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place Productive Places NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry Page 83
Page 84
Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 01 – Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Connected Places Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 82 – Contaminated Land (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 • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre- application consultation (PAC): No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: Please note that officers are not recommending a pre-determination hearing as it is considered that there would be no added value in this as all material planning considerations have been taken into account within this report including; consultee responses, third party representations etc. No Page 84
Page 85
(O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: N/A (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application Brownfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy Settlement Area ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations; The proposed development relates to the change of use from scrap yard (Sui Generis) to Class 5 to create a new commercial garage. The proposal also includes the demolition of the existing building on the site and the erection of a new building to house the proposed commercial garage. The site is located within the settlement area of Cardross as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) wherein Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) notes that development will normally be acceptable on a site which is the redevelopment of a brownfield site, and it is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively; providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development, and it is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and lastly that it complies with all relevant LDP2 policies. Page 85
Page 86
The proposed site is located within a largely residential area within the village centre and as such, the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity is a key determining factor. In addition, the proposed development has been assessed more generally with regard to siting, scale, massing form, and detailed design in relation to the aim of respecting and reflecting the visual character of the built development pattern within the location. The proposal has also been assessed with regard to the satisfactory provision of services infrastructure provision. A fully detailed assessment with reference to the above determining factors, and all other material considerations, including material planning issues raised by third party representations (not addressed above) are set out in the Appendix A to this report. Having regard to all material considerations it is considered that the proposal is acceptable. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold 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: No Author of Report: Emma Jane Date: 30.10.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 05.11.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 86
Page 87
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/00462/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 07/03/2024; supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 1 of 8 01 28.03.2024 Site Plan as Existing 2 of 8 03 28.03.2024 Elevations and Floor Plan as Existing 3 of 8 - 08.03.2024 Site Plan as Proposed 4 of 8 03 28.03.2024 Elevations and Floor Plans as Proposed 5 of 8 02 08.03.2024 Drainage plan 6 of 8 02 13.06.2024 Roads plan 7 of 8 02 13.06.2024 Design and Access Statement 8 of 8 - 08.03.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. External Materials - Prior to work starting on site samples of the proposed materials to be used for the external finishes of the development hereby granted consent shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any work starting on site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposal with its surroundings. 3. Sustainable Design – Prior to the commencement of development, details of the on-site micro renewable energy to provide heat or electricity to the property and details of the use of the final materials – including details of any re-cycled materials or local sourced materials and their embodied energy for each materials, shall first be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved micro renewables and materials must be used in the development hereby approved. Reason: In order to ensure compliance with LDP2 Policy 09 and to ensure the building is being as energy efficient as possible in order to respond to climate change. 4. Parking and Turning – The parking and turning area shall be laid out and surfaced Page 87
Page 88
in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development being brought into use and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 5. Visibility Splays – The proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08/005 Rev B. Vehicular visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 42 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access (measured from the edge of the public carriageway) and pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4 metres to point X by 2.4 metres to point Y from the centre line of the proposed access (measured from the rear of the footway). The access shall be surfaced with a bound material in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. Prior to work starting on site the access hereby approved shall be formed to at least base course standard and the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 1.05 metres above the access at point X to a point 0.6 metres above the public road carriageway at point Y. The final wearing surface on the access shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interest of road safety. 6. Drainage – Drainage within the site shall be implemented in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans prior to the development being brought into use. Reason: In the interest of road safety and to prevent surface water from being discharged onto the public road. 7. Boundary treatments – The stone boundary wall that borders the site shall be protected and retained during the demolition and construction phase. Reason: In the interest of residential amenity. 8. Demolition and Construction Method Statement - No demolition or construction works shall commence until a Demolition and Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The Method Statement shall address the developer’s intentions in respect of: • Demolition Methodology - Type and sequence of demolition and site establishment; • Intended hours of construction/demolition; • Details of the use of plant and storage of equipment and materials on site during construction and demolition; • Disposal of Waste Materials – details of the intended means of disposing of all materials arising from the demolition including any special arrangements required for the potential removal and disposal of hazardous materials; • Notification of demolition to adjacent property owners and local residents; • Dust, Vibration & Noise Reduction Strategy - steps to be taken to minimise the risk and nuisance to adjoining land, building or road users • Proximity to Buildings, Other Structures, Roads and Accesses – measures to protect structural integrity, to ensure exposed gables remain weather tight and protection of means of access; • Traffic Management – including details of parking and traffic movements to protect safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Demolition and Construction Method Statement, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Page 88
Page 89
Reason: In the interest of public safety and in order to protect the amenity of the locale and the built environment. Note to Applicant: • In devising the Demolition and Construction Method Statement consultation should take place with the Council’s Building Standards Officers, Environmental Health Officers and the Roads Authority to ensure compliance with other statutory requirements. 9. Operational hours - The operational hours of the garage business shall be restricted to Monday to Friday between 08:30 and 17:00, excepting Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays when the use will not be permitted at all. No deliveries should be undertaken between the hours of 17:00 and 08:30hrs Monday to Friday. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 10. External Lighting - No external lighting shall be installed until full details of any external lighting installation have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Environmental Health. Such details shall include the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage out with the site boundary. No external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. Reason: To protect the amenity of the immediate area, prevent the creation of nuisance due to light pollution and to support the reduction of energy consumption. 11. Waste storage - Prior to work starting on site the applicant shall submit to the Planning Authority a detailed specification of the containers to be used to store waste materials and recyclable materials produced on the premises as well as specific details of the areas where such containers are to be located. The use of the development shall not commence until the above details are approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the equipment and any structural changes are in place. Reason: To ensure that acceptable waste and recycling facilities are provided. 12. General Restriction of Use – The land and premises to which this permission relates shall only be used for a commercial garage that carries out MOT’s and repairs by appointment only and for no other use including any other purpose in Class 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 or other uses in Class 4 or 6 as permitted by the General Permitted Development Order 1992 (as amended). Reason: To define the permission in order to protect the amenity of the immediate area. Page 89
Page 90
ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • Flood risk: The flood risk advisor has noted that the garage could be elevated by approximately 0.3m to mitigate potential nearby flood risk, however, this is not a formal requirement. • Rats, drains and sewers: prior to the construction phase it is strongly recommended that any existing, but redundant, sewer/drainage connections should be sealed to prevent rat infestation and inhibit the movement of rats within the area via the sewers/drains. • Design and Construction of Buildings – Gulls: It is very strongly recommended that appropriate measures be taken in the design of all buildings and their construction, to inhibit the roosting and nesting of gulls. Such measures are intended to reduce nuisance to, and intimidation of, persons living, working and visiting the development. • CDM regulations: The applicant should be fully aware of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) and its implications on client duties etc. Page 90
Page 91
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/00462/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Settlement Strategy 1.1. The site is located within the settlement area of Cardross as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) wherein Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) notes that development will normally be acceptable on a site which is the redevelopment of a brownfield site, and it is compatible with surrounding uses including but not exclusively; providing access, service areas, infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development, and it is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed; and respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements; and lastly that it complies with all relevant LDP2 policies. 1.2. NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling the climate and nature crises) requires that significant weight be given the global climate and nature crises when considering new development. Policy 2 (Climate mitigation and adaptation) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that minimises emissions and adapts to impacts on climate change. NPF4 Policy 5 (Soils) aims to protect locally, regionally, national and internationally valued soils. 1.3. NPF4 Policy 9 (Brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings) intends to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. 1.4. NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry) supports proposals for micro-businesses that demonstrate the scale and nature of the proposed business and building will be compatible with surrounding area and there will be no unacceptable impacts on amenity or neighbouring uses. LDP2 Policy 22 (Economic Development) requires that a sequential approach is taken in regard to industrial and business development. 2. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site measures approximately 400sqm. The site is bounded by stone walls and has a vehicular access onto the A814 at the North-East of the site, there is also a residential flatted dwelling which bounds the North-East corner of the site. Furthermore, the surrounding area is primarily residential in nature although it should be noted that immediately adjacent are two retail units on the ground floor of the adjacent building which have an element of comings and goings. The application site is presently used as a scrap yard and has a large single storey mono-pitch building located centrally within the site, this building has a footprint of approximately 80sqm. It is proposed to demolish this structure as part of the application. 2.2. This application seeks a change of use from the scrap yard to a commercial garage. As part of the application it is proposed to erect a building to the rear of the application site. This building will house the proposed commercial garage. The footprint of the proposed garage building is approximately 120sqm and will occupy the width of the application site. The proposed eaves height of the building measures approximately 5m whereas the ridge height measures approximately 6m. The form of the building is a simple gable ended design. The remainder of the site will be taken up the access, turning, parking and a waste & recycling area. 2.3. The proposed building will be clad externally to the roof and walls using metal profiled cladding in anthracite. The profile of the proposed metal profiled cladding has not been specified, however, a planning condition is proposed to ensure that samples of this are submitted to and approved by the authority prior to commencement of works on site. It is further noted that it Page 91
Page 92
would be the preference of the authority that the applicants seek to use a corrugated profiled cladding and this has been discussed with the applicants. The corrugated cladding is considered to be traditional in regards to the vernacular of garages / outbuildings in historic village locations and would reflect the simple massing and from of the proposed garage building. The 2no. garage doors and pedestrian door to the North elevation will also be finished in the same material. No other external openings are proposed aside from the foregoing. It is also noted that solar panels are proposed to both roof slopes. 2.4. NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, quality and place) requires that development proposals be designed to improve the quality of an area; and, offers support to development that achieve the six qualities of Health; Pleasant; Connected; Distinctive; Sustainable; and, Adaptable. Development that is poorly designed, detrimental to the amenities of surrounding areas or inconsistent with the aforementioned six qualities will not be supported. 2.5. NPF Policy 14 is closely aligned with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 04 (Sustainable Development) which requires that developers to demonstrate certain sustainable development principles and also Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking) which requires developers to comply with certain placemaking criteria including; compatibility with surrounding land uses, make use of existing infrastructure, respect site topography, improve connectivity, incorporate green and blue infrastructure, adopting design that respects and complements its surroundings, siting and design should respond to the natural environment and the design should be sustainable in terms of materials and construction and should consider future adaptability, and climate change mitigation measures. 2.6. LDP2 Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting) requires that development integrates into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment, and the siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density; development should be carefully sited to avoid overshadowing or overlooking of itself or other properties; development should be positioned within the landscape to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements; development should be sited within easy access of existing infrastructure and services; and any ancillary development such as parking and turning areas, should be sensitively designed and sited. LDP2 Policy 09 (Sustainable Design) requires that development proposals demonstrate consideration of renewable energy and sustainable design & construction methods. LDP2 Policy 10 (Design: All Development) requires demonstration of an appropriate response to the development site and wider context, acknowledgement of the scale / massing of nearby buildings and use materials that are harmonious with the context. 2.7. In relation to sustainability, the application has included the submission of the Sustainability Checklist and the Sustainable Buildings Checklist in response to LDP2 Policy 09 within their design and access statement. The application responds to the sustainability criteria as follows; - The garage would bring a local business into the village and enables residents with the ability to have their cars repaired without having to travel to nearby towns, therefore, reducing the distance travelled and improving carbon footprint of the village; - In terms of siting the Garage will located on the Main Road through the village with easy links to Bus and rail transport; - In terms of renewable energy it is proposed to install solar panels to the east and west facing roof slopes which gives the ability to reduce the dependency on electricity. 2.8. As such, with regard to sustainable principles, it is accepted that the application is sustainably located. Whilst some principles of sustainable design and construction methods are not clearly set out, it is considered that further information can be obtained via condition (in this instance) to demonstrate clearly how sustainable principles are being incorporated into the design. 3. Natural Environment including trees 3.1. NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) generally seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and to deliver positive benefits from development that strengthens nature networks. Policy 3(c) Page 92
Page 93
requires that proposals for local development will include appropriate biodiversity measures proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposal. Policy 3(d) requires any potential adverse impacts on biodiversity/nature networks/natural environment to be minimised by planning and design. NPF4 Policy 3 is generally aligned with LDP2 Policy 73 (Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity), although NPF4 Policy 3(c) goes beyond the LDP2 requirements in relation to current biodiversity interests of the site. 3.2. NPF4 Policy 4 (Natural places) generally confirms that development that will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment will not be supported. Outside of European, national and local designations, development is expected to meet the relevant statutory tests in terms of protected species legislation; and potential impacts must be fully considered prior to determination of planning applications. NPF4 Policy 4 (insofar as it relates to the location, nature and scale of the current proposal) largely aligns with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 73. 3.3. LDP2 Policy 04 seeks to conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets. LDP2 Policy 73 ensures that other legislation relating to biodiversity habitats are fully considered in relation to development proposals; and generally that development does not have an adverse impact on habitat or species, particularly in relation to habitat or species designated as being of European, national or local significance. 3.4. The site is not located within or in proximity to any nature conservation designation. It is also noted that the site is currently a scrap yard and does not contain trees or other bio-diversity habitats, therefore, it is not considered that the proposals would have a negative effect on bio- diversity, habitats or the natural environment. 4. Infrastructure 4.1. In terms of potential flood risk, the application site, is not overlain by any recorded areas at risk to coastal, fluvial or surface water flooding with reference to the SEPA Flood Map. SEPA where consulted on the proposals and raised no objections, they did however note that the site is near to an area on the main road to the east of the site that is shown to be within the surface water flood extent shown in the SEPA Flood Maps. SEPA then noted that aspects of surface water flooding would be a matter for the local authorities flood risk advisor. The flood risk advisor was re-consulted on the basis of SEPA’s response and noted that they had no further comments to make and their response was that of no objection to the proposals. 4.2. It is also noted that within the revised site plans the applicants have detailed the location of the proposed surface water soakaway and drainage channel to mitigate and water run off onto the public carriageway. Furthermore, the flood risk advisor has commented in regards to the proposed drainage and has noted; ‘Site drainage has been acknowledged. This is acceptable.’ 4.3. In regards to the above, it is considered that the proposal makes adequate provision for services infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policies 18 (Infrastructure first), 20 (Blue and green infrastructure) & 22 (Flood risk and water management) and LDP2 Polices 06 (Green and Blue Infrastructure), 33 (Public Transport Infrastructure) & 61 (Sustainable Drainage Systems). 5. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters 5.1. Vehicular access to the site is directly from the A814, no changes have been proposed to the existing vehicular access. The area roads manager was originally consulted on the proposals and initially deferred their decision until details of the required visibility splays (pedestrian & vehicular) and the drainage requirements where detailed on the application drawings. The applicants then submitted additional information and the roads area manager was re-consulted, however, again they deferred their decision as the re-submitted drawings did not show the visibility splay and drainage requirements in full. The applicants then updated these drawings again and re-submitted. The roads area manager was then re-consulted again and on review of Page 93
Page 94
the latest set of proposed site plans confirmed that they had no objections to the proposals as the requires visibility splays and drainage requirements have been adequately demonstrated. 5.2. NPF4 Policy 13 (Sustainable transport) generally aims to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise alternative means of transport to car journeys and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The requirement to submit a Transport Assessment is introduced for some developments however this relates to larger scale developments than the current proposal, this policy is largely aligned with LDP2 Policy 33 (Public Transport Infrastructure). 5.3. The elements of NPF 4 Policy 13 that are relative to the scale and nature of this development are largely aligned with the provisions of LDP2 polices 37 (Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road) & 39 (Construction Standards for Private Access), which relate to (Development Utilising an existing private access and construction standards for private access. 5.4. The submitted site layout drawing shows 3 no. car parking spaces and adequate turning space and details the required pedestrian visibility splays of 2.4 m x 2.4 x 0.9m measured from the edge of the carriageway and the required vehicular visibility splays of 42 m x 2.4 x 0.9m measured from the edge of the carriageway. This drawing also shows the proposed drainage arrangements to ensure that no water shall discharge from the site onto the carriageway by way of a drainage channel at the site boundary across the vehicular access. 5.5. On the above basis it is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 and LDP2 Policies 37 & 39. 6. Residential amenity 6.1 LDP2 Policy 14 (Bad Neighbour Development) notes that the Council will resist any proposal that would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring land uses resulting from, but not limited to the following: noise or vibration; odour or fumes; emissions including dust, smoke, soot, ash, dirt or grit or any other environmental pollution to water, air, or soil; light pollution or flicker. This policy also notes; ‘In certain circumstances it may be possible to mitigate adverse impact upon neighbouring amenity by restrictions placed upon the proposed development via planning conditions or legal agreements.’ 6.2 As described above, the site is mainly within a residential area but it is located within the village centre on a Main Road which has high levels of traffic. The building immediately adjacent to the site has two retail units to the ground floor but there is a residential property on the upper floor and to the east is Cedarwood Court, a flatted development. There is already a level of noise disturbance at the properties along the Main Street due to traffic noise and the comings and goings at the nearby shops and public car park. There are also properties to the south on Church Avenue which back along the site and the nearest property is 14m from the proposed site. 6.3 It is noted that the Council’s Environmental Health team were consulted on the proposals and have recommended several safeguarding conditions that should be added to any approval. The environmental health officer has noted; ‘The site is close to the main road and surrounded by residential properties including the nearby Cedarwood Court. In the planning supporting statement the proposed working hours of the garage are stated as 08:30-17:00 Monday to Friday and would involve a mixture of MOT’s and repairs by appointment only. The applicant has stated that noisy activities such as removing /repairing body panels, panel beating, paint spraying, welding/cutting will not be carried out, and equipment likely to generate loud noise including pneumatic tools, grinders, sanders, air saws and chisels, welding/flame cutting, compressors will not be used as part of the business.’ The proposed safeguarding conditions relate to; the submission of a noise/vibration management plan including mitigation during the demolition/construction phase, restricted working hours during the demolition/construction phase, the submission of a dust management plan including mitigation during the demolition/construction phase, ensuing that adequate noise insulation is included within the proposed garage design, the restriction of operating hours of the garage business, restriction on Page 94
Page 95
noise out with the operating hours of the garage business, external lighting requirements and waste storage requirements. 6.4 In terms of potential overlooking or overshadowing in regards to nearby residential properties, it is not considered that the proposals would create any negative impacts in terms of overlooking as no windows are proposed, two garaged doors and a pedestrian door are proposed to the North elevation – these do not contain any glazing and furthermore the existing structure which is to be demolished has openings to this elevation also therefore there is no increase to any level of overlook. It is also considered that the proposals will not create any impacts in terms of overshadowing due to the height of the eaves being 5m and the ridge height being 6m, these heights when considering the sunlight/daylight calculations do not create any unacceptable impacts in terms of overshadowing. 6.5 In terms of the above, it is further noted that there have been several objections received that relate to the possible negative impacts resulting from the proposals in terms of privacy / overlooking / overshadowing and nuisance by way of noise/air pollution etc. It is considered that the proposals will not create issues in terms of privacy / overlooking or overshadowing for the reasons as detailed above. Furthermore, it is considered that the potential issues in terms of nuisance can be adequacy mitigated by the use of the safeguarding conditions as recommended by the environmental health officer. 6.6 It is also noted that the application site is presently used as a scrapyard, it is considered that the proposals will visually uplift the current site appearance and the use is not considered to be any more disturbing than the existing use as a Scrapyard in the context of current background levels of noise from the Main street traffic. The proposed garage is small scale in massing and does reflect the residential setting that surrounds it. The proposed safeguarding conditions will also protect the amenity of the surrounding residential properties in a way that they are not protected at present. 7. Conclusion 7.1. On the basis of the above it is confirmed that having regard to all material considerations it is considered that the proposal is acceptable. Page 95
Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 97
© 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: 24/00462/PP Page 97
Page 98
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 99
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: 24/00465/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Mr Callum McKirdy Proposal: Erection of dry storage shed within existing yard, formation of new access route from Watson Place, erection of perimeter fencing and change of use of land to extend existing yard (part retrospective) Site Address: 22A Wyndham Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute, Argyll and 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 extension to existing yard (Class 4) • Creation of access onto Watson Place • Erection of boundary fencing to extended yard • Siting of storage shed within existing yard (ii) Other specified operations • None (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Page 99 Agenda Item 7
Page 100
Classification: OFFICIAL Environmental Health Date Consulted: 29.07.2024 Response Received: 02.09.2024 No objections subject to conditions related to operating hours and lighting SEPA Date Consulted: 29.07.2024 Response Received: 04.07.2024 Standard consultation response, referring Officer to SEPA Development Management Standing Advice Roads Authority Date Consulted: 02.07.2024 Response Received: 01.11.2024 No objections subject to conditions. Proposed Conditions: • Vehicle crossing of footway off Watson Place and exit onto Wyndham Road to be constructed as per SD_08_004 rev B. First 5m of access road to be a sealed surface and entry and exit to Watson place and Wyndham Road. • Provision of sightlines on exit to Wyndham Road for 30mph speed limit; 2.4m x 42m x 1.05m envelope (2.4m setback distance to be taken from the carriageway edge). • Surface water must not flow onto the public road corridor. • Parking provision as per submitted documents • Commercial waste collection point to be serviced from Watson Place. (D) HISTORY: 17/02491/PNDEM Demolition of flatted properties, 1-32 Watson Place [Approved 08.03.2018] (E) PUBLICITY: Site Notice (Conservation Area) Date posted: 31.07.2024 - Date Expired 21.08.2024 Isle of Bute News Date Published: 12.07.2024 - Date Expired 02.08.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) 25 representations have been received in response to this application. 17 letters of objection, 7 letters of support, and 1 neutral comment have been made. Neutral (1) 1. Clive Cosway, 11A Marine Road, Rothesay, PA20 0LF – 22.07.2024 Page 100
Page 101
Classification: OFFICIAL Support (7) 1. Yvonne Burns, 8 Wyndham Road, Rothesay - 26.07.2024 2. Jennifer Dougal, 70 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay - 02.08.2024 3. Jay Gillies, No Address Supplied- 02.08.2024 4. Yasmin Haig, No Address Given- 31.07.2024 5. Jamie McGuigan, No Address Given- 13.08.2024 6. Dylan McLachlan, Tamara, Ballochgoy Road, Rothesay PA20 0JE – 07.08.2024 7. Margaret Webster, 36 Craigmore Road, Rothesay, PA20 9ES – 20.08.2024 Objection (17) 1. Cameron Buchanan, Flat G2, 74 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NN – 26.07.2024 2. Joan Cameron, 26 Wyndham Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NR – 15.07.2024* 3. Steven Cameron, 26 Wyndham Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NR – 15.07.2024* 4. Ian Colville, 7 Wyndham Road, Ardbeg, Rothesay – 26.07.2024** 5. Margaret Colville, 7 Wyndham Road, Ardbeg, Rothesay – 26.07.2024** 6. Jane Common, Flat 2/2 74 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NN – 26.07.2024 7. Grace Cook, Flat 2, 2 Wyndham Park, Rothesay, PA20 0NT – 31.07.2024 8. William McKechnie, 3a Wyndham Park, Rothesay, PA20 0NT – 29.07.2024 9. Jean Moffat, Craigmore Pier, Mount Stuart Road, Rothesay – 31.07.2024 10. Magali Moreau, Flat 1/2 74 Ardbeg Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NN – 30.07.2024 11. Hazel Murdoch, 5 Wyndham Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NR – 02.08.2024 12. Theresa Nelson, 19 Wyndham Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NR – 29.07.2024 13. William Nelson, 19 Wyndham Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NR – 29.07.2024 14. Kathleen Rodger, 7aF Ardbeg Road, Rothesay, PA20 0NN – 22.07.2024 15. Paul Shepherd, Flat 2, 10 Marine Place, Rothesay, PA20 0LF – 11.07.2024 16. Colin Spear, 9 Marine Place, Rothesay, PA20 0LF 17. Steven Wallace, 181 Eaglesham Road, Clarkston, Glasgow, G76 8RH / Flat 2/1 Earl Place, Ardbeg Road, Rothesay – 29.07.2024 */** Combined objection 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: Neutral (1) • I have absolutely no objection to this application. Officer Comment: No objection from adjoining neighbour noted Support (6) Residential Amenity - Noise • My property borders the yard and never once in five years have I had any problems with noise. Page 101
Page 102
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comment: The potential for increased noise disturbance as a result of this development is considered in the below assessment. Local Amenity • Watson Place being used as an access would hopefully reduce the street being used for abandoned vehicles, boats, and storage containers. • I support this application as the proposed fence will increase safety and tidy up Watson Place. • The proposed fence will improve safety and prevent unauthorised access to the yard. Officer Comment: The Planning Authority have received a number of complaints regarding the condition of the vacant ACHA land, with caravans, vehicles, containers, boats etc being left on the site or within Watson Place. The active use of this vacant land, with the erection of boundary fencing, will help to prevent the abandonment of materials/vehicles on this land. Siting & Design • The elevation plans state the height of the shed will be 4.13m which is in keeping with the joiner shed already on site. • The shed would be constructed of modern materials and not be unsightly and would allow the Applicant to store items currently on display within the yard internally, enhancing the appearance for on looking residents. • The proposed shed would not obstruct the views of neighbouring residents. Officer Comment: The siting and design of the proposed storage shed is assessed below. Road Safety • The one way system would improve safety. • The proposed access route from Watson Place will help manage the traffic flow more effectively, reducing congestion on Wyndham Road. • The proposed access road has already improved vehicular traffic on Wyndham Road. • (Prior to its demolition) Watson Place had 32 flats with vehicle use, bin lorries, delivery vans, etc. Officer comment: Road safety concerns are addressed in the assessment below Local Economy • I support the application to encourage a local business to expand and continue to provide a required service to the community. • The thriving business supports five families. • The expansion of the Business will likely lead to an increase in local employment opportunities, positively contributing to the local economy. • The scaffolding business has seen a significant increase in demand and it is understandable that they require more space for storage to support the growing business. • The business employs locally and shares its profits by sponsoring the Island’s annual Highland Games, Bute Fest, Ardbeg Bowling Club, as well as building and maintaining the local kids’ football pitch on Wyndham Road. Page 102
Page 103
Classification: OFFICIAL • I am in support of this application as this business is much needed on Bute and should be encouraged. Officer Comment: The potential local economic outcomes of this application are considered in the assessment below. Planning History • ACHA have leased the land to the Applicant and so it is clear there is no other proposed plans for this area by the land owner. Officer Comment: The site is comprised of vacant land currently that previously held a residential housing block. There are no other planning applications relevant for this site. • There has been a workshop on site since 1984 for various trades, and before then the site was used as a boat builders. Officer Comment: The planning history of the site is included in the assessment below. Other • Mr McKirdy is a hardworking upstanding member of the community that is well respected. • Mr McKirdy has obtained a Heavy Goods Vehicle License which is testament to his safe and professional standard of driving. Officer Comment: This is noted. The application applies to the change of use of land and is applicable to the site, rather than to the Applicant. Objection (18) Retrospective Application • This retrospective application shows a rather cavalier attitude to planning rules. • I object to this development, all the more so because it was unauthorised in the first place. • These commercial premises have expanded without apparent control. Officer Comment: This part-retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action to address the breach in planning control. Residential Amenity - Noise • We experience high levels of noise from lorries within the yard, especially when reversing and other mechanical noise. • The Council has contacted us regarding noise levels at the site prior to Covid, but this was not addressed. • We object that this area is used as a work yard and feel it is unfair to the residents. The extension of the yard will create an even bigger eyesore. • The area is residential and the business operations causes unnecessary noise for all neighbours. • I have a video of the owner working nosily loading a truck with a digger at 8:30pm. • Residents occasionally work from home and will be disturbed by commercial traffic • The existing site generates significant noise extending beyond working hours. This is already unacceptable in what is a quiet residential area. Page 103
Page 104
Classification: OFFICIAL • The proposed development will generate more noise. The tubular nature of the materials (scaffolding) amplifies sounds by default. Officer Comment: The potential harm to residential amenity is considered below, with an assessment from the Area Environmental Health Officer. The proposed extension of the yard is to improve storage capacity and will not involve significantly increased vehicular movements or activity within the yard. To note, the existing use of the yard is well-established and this assessment considers the change of use of adjoining land to expand the yard, rather than the use of the existing yard. Residential Amenity • The yard is used weekdays and sometimes weekends and now feels like an industrial yard rather than a residential area • The previous owners of the site used it from Monday-Friday with no lorries as I believe this was not allowed. • Mitigations to LDP2 Policy 14 (Bad Neighbour Development) were put in place when the original shed was built. The Applicant has not adhered to these conditions. • These are two occasions where the Council should have enforced the conditions associated with the property in question. • The Planning Committee will be able to access the previous permission granted to the previous owner to ascertain whether the current owner is complying with any conditions. Officer Comment: There is no relevant planning history to indicate a restriction on vehicle movements entering or existing the existing yard. There are no existing planning conditions or restrictions associated with this site. • We are now in the situation where neighbours are asked to comment and argue as to why the application should be denied, which could inevitably create ill will in the neighbourhood. Neighbours should not be put in this position when the conditions that were originally set recognized the residential neighbourhood, not an industrial estate. Officer Comment: As above, prior to the determination of this application, there are no planning conditions applied to this site. As per The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, the public are notified of the application to allow for representations to be made in response to the application. These representations are taken into consideration in the determination of the application and are an important part of the planning application process. • The joy of sitting in our gardens on a summer afternoon would be severely diminished- ditto the views from our back windows out to sea. • I operate an AirBnB from my flat which is 5-star rated and attracts tourists to the island. I can’t imagine the guests would be quite so charmed by the sight of a big shed out the back. Officer Comment: There is no right to a private view within Planning Legislation. Nonetheless, until 2018 the land was comprised of a four-storey housing block. Any view of the sea from neighbouring properties gained since the demolition will Page 104
Page 105
Classification: OFFICIAL not be affected by this development. The use of the existing yard including sheds and outbuilding is well established. The proposed new storage shed is confined to the existing yard. It is therefore unlikely to cause injury to the private commercial letting of a neighbouring residential flat. • The current operators of the yard have been using the existing common ground for overspill which has been an eyesore and detracts from local amenity. • The yard is not kept today and in order and is an eyesore with boats, vans, caravans etc stored there. • I overlook the yard and it is unsightly and has the potential to become a dumping ground for abandoned equipment. Officer Comment: The proposed storage shed will allow the Applicant to store more items out of the open within the existing yard. Watson Place has experienced recent issues with third parties leaving boats, caravans and other items for long periods. This is outwith the Applicant’s control, and the proposed boundary fencing will help to secure the extended yard. The potential impact of residential amenity is considered in the assessment below. Character & Appearance • The development significantly impacts the character of the neighbourhood and is detrimental to the overall appearance of the area. • The proposed commercial/industrial site is directly adjacent to a designated conservation area. • From the Conservation Area (marine Road) the huge shed would mar this particular view. • Building a massive shed on this site would in no way enhance the special qualities and character of this local landscape area which is residential and mostly older stone buildings. • The design would not develop the area’s sense of identity Officer Comment: The proximity of the site to the Conservation Area and the siting and design of the proposed development is considered in the assessment below. • The area concerned is a rural area and the property was initially intended for a one man self-employed workplace. Officer Comment: The site is within the Settlement Area of Port Bannatyne and is not a rural area, as defined in the Local Development Plan. The use of the land at the existing yard for light industry (Class 4) is well-established. Design & Siting • The proposed shed would be a significantly sized structure that would dominate the rear gardens of all adjoining properties. • The use of corrugated metal roof/wall sheets is an alien material, and out of keeping with the existing residential environment where traditional materials are employed. • The development is highly visible and the extension of the yard will change the appearance of the area and is not in keeping with the existing residential environment. Page 105
Page 106
Classification: OFFICIAL Officer Comment: The proposed storage shed is to be sited within the existing yard and will provide storage for items currently stored in the open. The yard already has an existing large shed and external structures to store scaffolding. An assessment of the design and siting of the development is included below. • The proposed boundary fence will not shield the encircling residential properties from the view into the site. Officer Comment: The boundary fence is necessary to ensure the site is secured. As the site is overlooked by dwellings of 3+ storeys at Watson Place and Wyndham Road it would not be possible, nor desirable to entirely shield the site from view. Landscape • No landscape and visual impact assessment has been done. • The proposed site is within a designated local landscape area and in no way enhances the amenity of that area. • Contrary to LDP2 Policy 71 (Development impact on Local Landscape Area) there are no benefits of community wide importance associated with this application. Officer Comment: Given the scale and nature of the proposal a visual impact assessment is not required. The whole Isle of Bute is designated as a Local Landscape Area. This designation does not preclude development. The potential impact to local landscape character is included in the assessment below. • The proposed site is within sight of a designated Open Space Protection Area. Officer Comment: Ardbeg Bowling Green is a designated Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) within the LDP2. The Bowling Green is in excess of 120m from the site boundary (site edged red) and is not visible from the development site. Nonetheless, the OSPA designation does not prevent development on other sites, irrespective of whether the site is viewable from the OSPA. This development has no bearing on the designated OSPA. Trees & Vegetation • Bute Access Services (BAS) [Applicant] removed a section of hedge to form the access. • The three trees identified on the plan appear to be suffering die back Officer Comment: The removal of the hedge does not require planning permission and is not included in this application. The health of the three trees on site are not relevant to this application. Road Safety • The entrance to the children’s playground is in the vicinity of the proposed access road. • Kids run around freely between the playgrounds and the football pitch and more traffic through the proposed gate might cause accidents. • Having lorries and trucks swinging into Watson Place presents a road safety risk. • This is a peaceful low noise and low traffic volume locality. The proposed development is not suitable for a heavy lorry access. Page 106
Page 107
Classification: OFFICIAL • The area concerned suffers from a lack of residential parking and would be highly unsuitable for a HGV to access at all times of day and night. • There would be a significant increase in the volume of traffic which would impact upon maintaining a safe environment. • The new access route incorporates a tight corner at Wyndham Road/Watson Place junction, with vehicles sometimes mounting the pavement. • The owner already has an access on Wyndham Road and so he doesn’t need another. Officer Comment: No increase in vehicle movements are proposed. The new access from Watson Place is proposed to implement a one-way system through the existing yard to improve vehicular movements through the site. An assessment of road safety concerns are considered below, including comments from the Area Roads Officer. • Families visiting the play park have to park on the pavement due to the narrowness of the road and the width of the trucks. Parking on the pavement is banned by Argyll and Bute Council. Officer Comment: There is sufficient width on Watson Place to allow the Applicant’s vehicles to pass vehicles that are parked appropriately. Concerns regarding inappropriate parking should be reported to the Roads Authority via the Council’s website. Loss of Land for Housing • This is a significant change of residential land to commercial. The land at Watson Place would be more suitable for sheltered housing due to its prime location. • ACHA which own the land should be building much needed housing on this land. • The land was to be reseeded and maintained by ACHA for future development. It would be an ideal site for housing. • Should this application be granted, it may render the remaining portion of Watson Place less desirable for residential development. Officer Comment: The vacant land at Watson Place is owned by Housing Association ACHA. The previous ACHA housing block was mothballed in 2018 and permission was granted for its demolition. There are no alternative planning applications for the site, or the remaining vacant land to take into consideration. • There are areas in Rothesay which are designated for commercial purposes readily available. Officer Comment: The existing yard has an established Class 4 (Light Industrial) use. This application seeks to extend an existing yard for the purpose of storage and access. The Applicant has submitted a further statement explaining the difficulties faced in locating appropriate sites on the Island. Local Amenity- Green Open Space • This expansion of an industrial site into a green and residential area is disgraceful. • When Watson Place [flats] came down the land was designated a green space that could attract insects and butterflies. • Already our green space is being encroached upon by an access route to the yard. Page 107
Page 108
Classification: OFFICIAL • There are not enough green spaces in the town and this space should be for community use not business. • The Council prides itself on its commitment to the environment so let’s encourage pollinators not polluters and refuse this application. Officer Comment: The land at Watson Place became vacant land following the demolition of the housing block. The land is a vacant brownfield site, privately owned by the Housing Association. This land is not a designated open space with regard for the Local Development Plan. An assessment of biodiversity impact is included in the assessment below. • The local children play football there, which is great for the community. To see this space taken away to house a big shed would be a great shame. Officer Comment: The proposed storage shed is to be sited within the existing yard. The vacant land on which an informal football pitch has been erected is outwith the site boundary of this application. These submitted plans are a matter of public record and can be viewed on the Council’s website. Access • The access on Wyndham Lane is no longer leafy and discreet. • The lane has been widened allowing large vehicles to access the site Officer Comment: No access alterations to Wyndham Road are included in this application. • The Applicant laid an access road without planning permission. I would challenge is this had been laid to any recognised standard. Officer Comment: This part-retrospective application is made following planning enforcement action to address the unauthorised development. A Roads condition is attached to ensure the first 5m of the access track is surfaced in accordance with road safety standards. Parking • The application would increase the parking to 8 spaces- but it does not say what kind of vehicles. Officer Comment: An amended plan to show vehicular parking spaces has been submitted by the Applicant and is considered in the assessment below. To note, as the site falls below 2500sqm for Class 4 use there is no minimum parking standard required. • The Site Area on the application form is incorrect Officer Comment: The sqm of the proposed storage shed is included in the Application Form where the sqm of the entire site should be. This is a minor administrative error by the Applicant and as the submitted plans clearly show the site edged red, this error has no bearing upon the application. Site Safety Page 108
Page 109
Classification: OFFICIAL • The entrance from Wyndham Road which has gates does not seem to be secured at any time, which is a safety risk. Officer Comment: A double-gate is installed at the entrance to the yard from Wyndham Road. The Applicant may wish to secure the site when not in use, however there are no clear safety concerns that would mandate the gates to be closed or locked. Site Notice • At the time of writing a site notice had not been posted in the local area. Officer Comment: Due to the proximity of the site to the Rothesay Conservation Area, a Site Notice is required to be displayed locally for 21 days. Copies of the Notice were displayed locally from 31st July 2024, expiring on 21st August 2024. The planning application was also advertised in the Isle of Bute News from 12th July 2024- 2nd August 2024 in accordance with the regulations. Other • We would like confirmation [the Applicant] has an Operator’s Licence for the use of a lorry on the premises. Officer Comment: Operating Licenses are issued by the Traffic Commissioner. Licences (and applications) are a matter of public record and can be found online. • As convenor of Bute Community Council (BCC) I support the letter of objection form Mr William McKechnie. As there is no BCC meeting in August I cannot say that the community object. Officer Comment: Personal objection noted • This development will impact house prices in the area. • If this development was in the area when I purchased my property I would not have purchased my property. • We feel the extension of the yard and the erection of a further shed will affect the value of our property even more than what it already does. Officer Comment: Property values are not a material planning consideration. • I request that a site visit is completed by the Planning Committee Officer Comment: Site visits are taken at the discretion of the Planning Committee. The request will be included in the committee report. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No Page 109
Page 110
Classification: OFFICIAL (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 • The proposed storage shed will help support business growth and diversification. • The expanded storage capabilities at the site will enable the business to continue to provide much needed services to domestic and commercial properties across the Island. • Expansion of storage capabilities at the site will allow for better inventory management and reduce transportation needs. • The growth and diversification of the business further supports high-quality job creation on the Island. • The proposed one way system will reduce congestion on Wyndham Road • The proposed boundary fencing will provide security and delineation of the yard from public spaces. • Existing vegetation has been retained as much as the site allows. • The proposed shed and fencing does not have the height to adversely affect surrounding properties. • The existing site has long operated as an industrial site within the wider residential area. • Where possible, locally sourced materials have been used such as hardcore for the local quarry and timber form the local sawmill. • The proposed shed is a kit shed, with no waste. • Rainwater butts to harvest rainwater will be installed on site. • The existing workshed has toilet facilities and is connected to the mains sewer. • The access track is mainly type 1 hardcore with a whindust topping to allows for surface water drainage. ☒Yes ☐No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No Page 110
Page 111
Classification: OFFICIAL (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place 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 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 17 – Conservation Areas Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 22 – Economic Development Connected Places Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Page 111
Page 112
Classification: OFFICIAL Sustainable Communities Policy 55 – Flooding Homes for People Policy 65 – Proposals for Other Uses on Allocated Housing Sites High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Areas (LLA’s) (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • Rothesay Conservation Area Appraisal: RothesayTownCentreCAA-Part1- FINALDRAFT.pdf (argyll-bute.gov.uk) (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 In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, Members should consider the following: • How up to date the Development Plan is; the relevance of the policies to the proposed development; and whether the comments are on Development Plan policy grounds that have recently been considered through the Development Plan process • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance 18 objections, six representations of support, and one neutral representation have been received in response to this application. The determining factors in the assessment of the application are whether the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2, and whether the issues Page 112
Page 113
Classification: OFFICIAL introduced by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold Planning Permission. The main points raised are concerned with road safety, residential amenity, and design and siting. These points are addressed in the body of the report. It is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Bute and South Cowal Local Landscape Area • Within the setting of the Rothesay Conservation Area (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: metres / 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 Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No details to be secured by condition ☒N/A (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☒Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: n/a Page 113
Page 114
Classification: OFFICIAL (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This application is made in part retrospect following planning enforcement action (Case Reference: 24/00034/ENOTH2). The proposed access from Watson Place is already in operation. The Site The site is located within the Settlement Area of Ardbeg, Isle of Bute and comprises an existing work yard and adjoining vacant land. The adjoining vacant land is owned by Argyll Community Housing Association (ACHA) and is leased to the Applicant for the purpose of expanding the existing yard. The land was previously used for a flatted housing block which was demolished in 2018. The brownfield land has remained vacant ever since. Although previously used for housing, the site is not an allocated housing site within the LDP2. This proposal concerns approximately half of the vacant land site, with the remaining land retained by ACHA. There is no planning history for the existing yard and workshop at 22A Wyndham Road and it is understood the site has been used as a builders’ yard since the 1980s. The existing use of the site is considered to be a mix of Class 4 (Business – including light industrial use) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution). The Proposal This application seeks permission to change the use of adjoining land from vacant land to Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) for the purpose of expanding business operations from the existing yard. The change of use of land would facilitate the creation of an access into the yard from Watson Place, allowing for a one-way system to be adopted through the existing yard. The application proposes the erection of timber boundary fencing to the currently vacant land to secure the site, and the erection of a storage shed within the grounds of the existing yard. The existing site is used by the Applicant for Bute Access Services, a local business providing scaffolding erections and hire on the Island. The business is 8 years old and employs 6 staff. The proposed storage shed and expansion of the yard will enable the company to take on larger contracts and projects, in turn helping the business to grow. The proposed expansion of the yard on to vacant brownfield land includes no building works or significant hardstanding, and will be used primarily for open air storage and access. The design elements of the application concern the proposed storage shed and boundary fencing. Neither presents concerns for overlooking or overshadowing and are generally consistent with the aims of the relevant design policies of the LDP. A lighting scheme will be secured by planning condition to ensure residential amenity in terms of light pollution. The development site partly borders the Rosneath Conservation Area. Given the low level of visual intrusion, the setting of the C-Listed dwellinghouses Nos. 7- 8 Page 114
Page 115
Classification: OFFICIAL Marine Place and the Conservation Area designation are unaffected by this development. Despite the surrounding residential uses, the existing yard is well established and whilst the vacant land is not designated for business and industry use, the proposal makes efficient use of adjoining vacant brownfield land in accordance with the Local Development Plan. Residential Amenity A number of objections have been raised in regards to noise and disturbance from business operations at the site. The proposed change of use allows the business to store more materials and equipment on site, enabling them to take on more projects. However, it is noted that some noise disturbance is likely during loading and unloading. Currently, materials are loaded/unloaded up to 3 times through the working day. Nonetheless it is proposed that operations are confined to day time working hours to ensure noise disturbance is minimised. The Area Environmental Health Officer has raise no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions curtailing operating hours and exterior lighting to ensure the preservation of residential amenity. Road Safety A number of objections have been made in respect to perceived road safety concerns given the proximity of the children’s play park accessed from Watson Place. A formal written consultation from the Roads Authority has not been provided in response to this application. However the Area Roads Officer was consulted prior to the application being validated. No objections are raised subject to the application of planning conditions related to visibility splays and standard access construction. It is considered there is sufficient space on the road to ensure the necessary visibility for all road users (including pedestrians) and for the safe manoeuvring (turning) into the site from Watson Road. Several representations have also been made regarding issues with congestion on Wyndham Road exacerbated by vehicles associated with the business. However, the proposed change of use of land is not considered to materially increase the volume of traffic to and from the site. Rather the proposed one way system would help to better regulate the vehicles entering and existing the site and reduces the number of comings and goings from the existing Wyndham Road access. Flooding The proposal presents no significant hard standing or building works which may increase the risk of surface water flooding on site or to adjoining land, and there is no conflict with the relevant water management policies. Conclusion This application seek permission for the change of use of land from vacant brownfield to Class 6 (Storage and Distribution). Retrospective permission is sought for the creation of a vehicle access into the existing yard from Watson Place, and for the erection of a further storage shed and boundary fencing. A number of objections have been made in terms of harm to residential amenity, loss of open green space, and road safety concerns. The existing Class 4 (Business) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) of the site is well established and is not contested in the determination of this application. Page 115
Page 116
Classification: OFFICIAL The proposed change of use of land seeks access and open air storage space and is unlikely to intensify the potential for noise disturbance at this site. However, following consultation with Environmental Health, a condition is applied to this permission to limit operating hours at the site to within reasonable working hours in the interests of residential amenity. The business provides essential services to the Island and employs locally and makes a significant contribution to the local economy. The expansion of the yard to facilitate additional storage and improvement to access arrangements will enable the Applicant to take on larger projects, in turn helping to strengthen the business. The development proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the relevant economic and business polices of the Local Development Plan. The proposal is in accordance with the Local Development Plan and for the reasons outlined in the Officer’s report it is recommended that planning permission is granted. A copy of the full report can be found in Appendix A. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold 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: 29.10.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 01.11.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 116
Page 117
Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/00465/PP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 08.03.2024, supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the planning authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 1929 - 3001 01 24.06.2024 Supplementary Location Plan 1929- 3000 01 24.06.2024 Existing Site Plan 1929-3002 01 24.06.2024 Proposed Site Plan 1929-3003 01 24.06.2024 One -Way System (annotated Site Plan) 1929-3003 (02) Annotated by Applicant to show one-way system 26.09.2024 Parking Bays (annotated site Plan) 1929-3003 (03) Annotated by Applicant to show parking bays 26.09.2024 Shed Elevations 1929-3003 02 02.07.2024 Shed Floor Plan 1929-3111 01 24.06.2024 Topographical Plan 0043 01 11.03.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. No external lighting shall be installed until full details of any external lighting installation have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Environmental Health. Such details shall include the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. No external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. Reason: In order to avoid light pollution in the interest of amenity. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no loading or unloading of vehicles shall be undertaken on the site outwith the hours of 08:00- 18:00 Monday – Friday and 08:00- 13:00 Saturday. There shall be no working permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: In order to minimise noise disturbance to protect the amenity of the area. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the access from Watson Place shall only be used to enter the site and shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08 005 [Revision B]; The first 5m of access road Page 117
Page 118
Classification: OFFICIAL shall be a sealed surface in accordance with the stated Standard Detail Drawing. It shall be formed prior to the operation of the site. Reason: In the interests of road safety 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, the access on to Wyndham Road shall only be used to exit the site and shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD 08 005 [Revision B]; with visibility splays of 2.4m x 42m (2.4m setback distance to be taken from the carriageway edge). The visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions above 1.05 metres. It shall be formed prior to the operation of the site. Reason: In the interests of road safety ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • All external lighting should be designed in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Light Energy Consumption” 2007, Annexes A and B. Site specific advice may be obtained by contacting the Council’s Environmental Health Officers. • A Road Opening Permit under s.56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 is required to form an access with the public road. Please consult the Roads Authority. • The access shall be constructed and drained to ensure that no surface water is discharged onto the public road. Page 118
Page 119
Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/00465/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Assessment 1. Preliminaries 1.1 This application is made in part retrospect following planning enforcement action (Case Reference: 24/00034/ENOTH2). The proposed access from Watson Place is already in operation. 2. The Site 2.1 The site is located within the Settlement Area of Ardbeg, Isle of Bute. The site comprises an existing work yard and adjoining vacant land. 2.2 The existing yard is accessed from between Nos. 22 and 24 Wyndham Road and sits between the rear of dwellinghouses on Wyndham Road and the rear of dwellinghouses on Marine Place. 2.3 The adjoining vacant land is owned by Argyll Community Housing Association (ACHA) and is leased to the Applicant for the purpose of expanding the existing yard. The land was previously used for a flatted housing block which was mothballed by ACHA in 2018, with permission granted to demolish the block. The brownfield land has remained vacant since the flats were demolished. 2.4 This proposal concerns approximately half of the vacant land site, with the remaining land retained by ACHA. This remaining land is currently utilised as an informal play/football area by local residents and is not included in this application. 2.5 There is no planning history for the existing yard and workshop at 22A Wyndham Road. The Applicant notes that he understands the site has been used as a builders’ yard with light industrial use within the workshed since the 1980s. There is no information within the Council’s Planning files for the site to suggest an alternative use at this site. 2.6 The site is generally used for storage and distribution, whereas the existing warehouse/shed is used for light industry activity as well and storage and distribution. The existing use of the site is considered to be a mix of Class 4 (Business – including light industrial use) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 (as amended). 3. The Proposal 3.1 This application seeks permission to change the use of adjoining land from vacant land to Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) for the purpose of expanding business operations from the existing yard. The change of use of land would facilitate the creation of an access into the yard from Watson Place, allowing for a one-way system to be adopted through the existing yard. The application proposes the erection of timber boundary fencing to the currently vacant land to secure the site, and the erection of a storage shed within the grounds of the existing yard. Page 119
Page 120
Classification: OFFICIAL 4. Biodiversity & Sustainability 4.1 The vacant brownfield land has been laid to grass and subject to occasional maintenance by the land owner (and local residents) and would not be classed as reclaimed by nature for the purpose of relevant biodiversity policies. There appears no significant variety of flora and no indication that the exposed site is home to any notable fauna. A small waterway traverses the site and is culverted between the existing yard and opening on to the vacant land. Existing rubble from the site and additional material from the local quarry has been crushed to form a semi-permeable access track. The proposed expansion of the yard includes no building works or significant hardstanding, and will be used primarily for open air storage and access. In turn it is considered this proposal will have a neutral effect on biodiversity. 4.2 Therefore, this proposal presents no significant conflict with the policy aims of NPF4 Policy 01 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises), Policy 02 (Climate Mitigation and Adaption), and Policy 03 (Biodiversity). 5. Design & Siting Storage Shed 5.1 The proposed storage shed, whilst 23m in length, has a low pitched roof totalling 4.1m in height. There is no interruption to daylight or concerns for overshadowing to the adjoining residential properties from the siting of this shed. Whilst the shed will protrude beyond the adjoining boundary wall, the low-profile roof will make the shed less visually dominant on the site compared to the existing shed on site (which is approximately 5m in height). 5.2 From Watson Place, the storage shed will be largely screened by the proposed 1.8m high perimeter fencing and existing hedge. The shed is sited at sufficient distance from the rear garden boundary of No.s 8-10 and 12-14 Wyndham Road to have little visual or amenity impact upon these properties. Boundary Fencing 5.3 The proposed use of close-boarded timber fencing to enclose the site will help to secure the land and provide a continuous boundary, clearly demarcating the land from the adjoining vacant land, public road, and adjoining properties. The surrounding boundary treatments comprises a mixture of timber and wire fencing and stone walls. Whilst at 1.8m in height the proposed fencing would be taller than the surrounding residential fencing and has the added benefit of securing the land to prevent further abandonment of vehicles and waste items experienced by residents in the past. The proposed timber gate opens inwards, ensuring the footpath and public road are not obstructed when in use. Lighting 5.4 There are no details included for external lighting for the proposed storage shed. To ensure minimal light disturbance for adjoining dwellings a planning condition is applied for the approval of any lighting scheme prior to its installation, to the satisfaction of the Area Environmental Health Officer. 5.5 As set out in LDP2 Policy 04 (Sustainable Development), development proposals should seek to demonstrate sustainable development principles. This application is supported by the Policy in that is makes efficient use of vacant land (b), and avoids the loss of important recreational and amenity open space (g). Whilst the surrounding land uses are residential, the use of the existing yard as light industry, storage and distribution is long established. 5.6 Further, as set out within LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking) the proposed use should be compatible with surrounding land uses. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and a number of representations have been made to argue that the proposed Page 120
Page 121
Classification: OFFICIAL development is not in keeping with the residential area. However the existing site is long established. The expansion of the yard, for open air storage and access does not undermine the residential character of the area given the established presence of the existing yard. Furthermore, the proposed use for storage and access, with no proposed built development, is not considered to give rise to conflict with residential amenity. Rather, the development of this land may help enhance the local area by making effective use of a vacant brownfield site. In turn, it is considered that there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking). 5.7 For these reasons, the proposal is therefore consistent with the policy aims of NPF4 Policy 14 (Design, Quality and Place); LDP2 Policy 05 (Design and Placemaking), Policy 08 (Sustainable Siting), and LDP2 Policy 10 (Design). 6. Rosneath Conservation Area 6.1 The development site partly borders the Rosneath Conservation Area. The Conservation Area, as viewed from Marine Place, comprises detached villas set within in large plots, and orientated to face the sea. There is no disruption to the pattern of development as a result of this application. Given the low level of visual intrusion, the setting of the C-Listed dwellinghouses Nos. 7- 8 Marine Place are unaffected by this development. 6.2 The proposed storage shed will protrude approximately 2.12m above the boundary wall. This will be partially viewable from the public road at Marine Place, between dwellinghouses Nos. 9-11. The shed is finished in matt black, with no active frontages facing the Conservation Area. It is unlikely that the proposed boundary fencing would be visible from the public road at Marine Place. 6.3 In turn, this development is not considered to materially impact the setting of the Conservation Area and is in accordance with NPF4 Policy 7 (Historic Assets and Places); LDP2 Policy 17 (Conservation Areas); and LDP2 Policy 15 (Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment). 7. Business & Industry 7.1 As LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Areas) sets out, development within Settlement Areas will normally be supported where it is redevelopment of a brownfield site, it is compatible with surrounding land uses, and is of an appropriate scale for the size of the settlement. The proposed development presents a sustainable reuse of brownfield land within the Settlement Area to actively support an existing business use, in line with LDP2 Policy 01. In additional, the proposal is supported by NPF4 Policy 09 (Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings) and LDP2 Policy 04 (b) (Sustainable Development). 7.2 In accordance with NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and Industry), development proposals for business and industry use outwith sites designated for this purpose will only be supported where: (D,i). It is demonstrated that there are no suitable alternative allocated in the LDP, (D, ii). The nature and scale of the activity will be compatible with the surrounding area, And; (E, i). The impact on surrounding residential amenity is taken into account. 7.3 The existing site is used by the Applicant as the business base for Bute Access Services, providing scaffolding erections and hire. The business also carries out groundworks, shed building/erections, fencing and stone walling. The business is 8 years old and employs 6 staff. The proposed storage shed and expansion of the yard will enable the company to take on larger contracts and projects, in turn helping the business to grow. Page 121
Page 122
Classification: OFFICIAL 7.4 Although no material has been submitted to evidence the necessary site surveys in accordance with this policy, the Applicant explains in the Supporting Statement that the business previously operated from a premises at Rhubodach, but proved unsustainable given its remote location and lack of security. The opportunity to buy the existing yard from the previous owners presented a rare opportunity for the business to be located within easy reach of projects and employees. The Applicant has also purchased the dwellinghouse at No. 23 Wyndham Road, providing an extra sense of security as the site can be actively monitored outwith usual operating hours. 7.5 Despite the surrounding residential uses, the existing yard is well established and whilst the vacant land is not designated for business and industry use, the proposal makes efficient use of adjoining vacant brownfield land in accordance with this policy. 7.6 Although previously used for housing, the site is not an allocated housing site within the LDP2 and as such the proposed change of use is not required to accord with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 65 (Proposals for Other Uses on Allocated Housing Sites). 7.7 The business provides essential services to the Island and employs locally and makes a significant contribution to the local economy. The expansion of the yard to facilitate additional storage and improvement access arrangements will enable the Applicant to take on larger projects, in turn helping to strengthen the business. The development proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 26 (Business and industry), LDP2 Policy 01 (Settlement Area), and Policy 22 (Economic Development). 8. Residential Amenity 8.1 The expansion of the existing yard onto adjacent vacant land enables the Applicant to make efficient use of the existing site, improving safety and condition of the yard by providing further enclosed storage and a one way vehicular system. The use of the land is to facilitate increased storage, occasional parking, and access. This has the potential to negatively affect residential amenity of surrounding homes. A number of representations have been made by local residents regarding noise disturbance for the site. 8.2 The Applicant explains that the loading of vehicles with scaffolding and equipment does not take place before 08:00hrs. The employees return to the site to load/unload around lunchtime and again to unload at the end of the working day. It is noted that whilst some noise likely during loading and unloading, these are not constant throughout the day. These working practices are not anticipated to change with the proposed use of the adjacent land for increased storage and access. The proposal will unlikely increase harm to residential amenity in terms of noise and vibration. 8.3 The Area Environmental Health Officer has raise no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions curtailing operating hours and exterior lighting to ensure the preservation of residential amenity. 8.4 It is considered appropriate and reasonable therefore to apply a planning condition to restrict operating hours to within 08:00-18:00 Mon-Fri and 08:00-13:00 Saturdays to ensure any noise disturbance from activities on the site are confined to within the working day, in accordance with LDP2 Policy 14 (Bad Neighbour Development). This would apply to the loading and unloading of materials, and work vehicles entering and existing, and any other noise generating work activity on site. It is not intended to restrict the use of the onsite office for administrative purposes outwith these specified hours. 9. Road Safety 9.1 The existing yard is accessed from Wyndham Road. The proposed new access (currently in operation) from Watson Place, enables the Applicant to implement a one-way Page 122
Page 123
Classification: OFFICIAL system for vehicles. This would help to minimise damage to the ground surface within the yard by removing the need for reversing and manoeuvring. 9.2 In accordance with LDP2 Policy 40 (Vehicle Parking Provision), the minimum parking standard is 1 space per 50m2 for Class 4 use of 2500sqm and above. The site is approximately 2,300sqm and so this minimum standard is not required to be met. Nonetheless there appears ample room within the existing yard for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles including the two 7.5 tonnes flatbed truck utilised by the business. 9.3 The Area Roads Officer has no objections and raised no concerns in response to this application. The Officer recommends planning conditions related to visibility splays, surfacing, and drainage in the interests of road safety. 9.4 A number of concerns regarding road safety and the proximity to the children’s play park have been raised by local residents. The children’s play park is accessed on foot from Watson Place and is sited approximately 13m from the mid-point of the proposed access track on the opposite side of the road. The road width between the pavement next to the enclosed park and the vacant land not part of this application is approximately 4.5m, whereas the road width between the pavement at the mid-point of the proposed access and the opposite boundary is approximately 9m. It is considered there is sufficient space on the road to ensure the necessary visibility for all road users (including pedestrians) and for the safe manoeuvring (turning) into the site from Watson Place. 9.5 Several representations have been made regarding issues of congestion on Wyndham Road and raise complaints that the use of the public road by vehicles associated with the business causes road safety issues and is an inconvenience to local residents. However, the continued use of the existing yard is well established and not under consideration in the determination of this application. The proposed change of use of land is not considered to materially increase the volume of traffic to and from the site. Rather the proposed one way system would help to better regulate the vehicles entering and existing the site and reduces the number of comings and goings from the existing Wyndham Road access. 10. Flooding 10.1 The proposal presents no significant hard standing or building works which may increase the risk of surface water flooding on site or to adjoining land. Nor is there any increased risk from the change of use of vacant land to land used for storage to trigger a flood risk appraisal. As a use of less or equal vulnerability, there is no conflict with NPF4 Policy 22 (Flood Risk and Water Management), and LDP2 Policy 55 (Flooding). 11. Conclusion 11.1 This application seek permission for the change of use of land from vacant brownfield to Class 6 (Storage and Distribution). Retrospective permission is sought for the creation of a vehicle access into the existing yard from Watson Place, and for the erection of a further storage shed and boundary fencing. 11.2 A number of objections have been made in terms of harm to residential amenity, loss of open green space, and road safety concerns. 11.3 The existing Class 4 (Business) and Class 6 (Storage and Distribution) of the site is well established and is not contested in the determination of this application. The inclusion of the existing yard within the application enables regulation of the site in terms of working hours to ensure residential amenity in terms of noise, vibrations, and disturbance. The proposed change of use of land seeks access and open air storage space and is unlikely to intensify the potential for noise disturbance at this site. However, following consultation with Environmental Page 123
Page 124
Classification: OFFICIAL Health, a condition is applied to this permission to limit operating hours at the site to within reasonable working hours. 11.4 As this application proposes the efficient use of a vacant, brownfield site to support the business operations existing on the adjoining land, the minor departure from policy in terms of undesignated business and industry uses within the settlement area is justified in this case. 11.5 The proposal is in accordance with the Local Development Plan and for the reasons outlined in this report it is recommended that planning permission is granted. Page 124
Page 125
© 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: 24/00465/PP Page 125
Page 126
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 127
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 127 Agenda Item 8
Page 128
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 128
Page 129
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 129
Page 130
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 130
Page 131
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 131
Page 132
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 132
Page 133
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 133
Page 134
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 134
Page 135
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 135
Page 136
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 136
Page 137
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 137
Page 138
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 138
Page 139
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 139
Page 140
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 140
Page 141
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 141
Page 142
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 142
Page 143
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 143
Page 144
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 144
Page 145
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 145
Page 146
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 146
Page 147
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 147
Page 148
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 148
Page 149
© 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 149
Page 150
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 151
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 20 NOVEMBER 2024 SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION: SCOTTISH BUILDING SAFETY LEVY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on the proposed Building Safety Levy, which would apply to the construction of new residential buildings. The Scottish Government is seeking views and evidence on how the Levy should be structured and operate, based on the distinct characteristics and needs of the housing market in Scotland. Revenue from the Levy will be used to support the Scottish Government's Cladding Remediation Programme. The consultation closes on 18 November 2024. 2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 It is recommended that members consider and approve the proposed council response to the Building Safety Levy consultation. 3.0 DETAIL 3.1 The Scottish Government is seeking views on the introduction of a tax on new residential developments, to be paid by developers. This is in response to unsafe cladding that has been installed on thousands of high and medium rise buildings across the UK including Scotland. 3.2 Following England's lead, the new tax – the Building Safety Levy – would take the form of an additional charge to support the Scottish Government's work to remediate cladding in existing residential buildings. 3.3 In England, the UK Government intends to raise the majority of the funding for its work to remediate these buildings through a Building Safety Levy, paid for by developers in the residential property development sector. The UK Government’s decision to create this Levy in England-only means that Scotland will receive no consequential funding from its introduction. "This creates a gap in our funding arrangements, and the need to address this gap must be considered in the context of an incredibly challenging medium-term outlook for public finances," it said. Page 151 Agenda Item 9
Page 152
3.4 A consultation for the Scotland Building Levy opened in September and runs until 18 November 2024. It focuses on the principles of introducing a Levy on new housebuilding, to support cladding remediation work. It is seeking views, both positive and negative – to understand the impact the Levy could have. It asks who should pay, and who should be exempt; how the Levy should be calculated; how the Levy should operate – when will it be charged, and how will it be collected. 3.5 It also asks questions around compliance – what kind of powers might be needed to enforce the Levy; how long the Levy should run for; and how developers and the wider housing supply chain might be affected by the introduction of the Levy. 3.6 "Responses to this consultation and the associated programme of engagement will support the policy development for a potential future Building Safety Levy in Scotland," the Scottish Government said in a press release. "If the powers to allow Scottish Ministers to introduce a building safety levy are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, then responses will also support development of a future Bill that provides for a devolved tax." 3.7 A Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) has also been published, which provides the government's initial view of the costs, benefits and risks that the Scottish Building Safety Levy may have if introduced. This link to the consultation supporting documents provides relevant information pertinent to each question. A draft response to each question is included in Appendix 1 of this report for Member’s consideration. Information on the consultation can be found via this link. Scottish Building Safety Levy: consultation - gov.scot Overall the response as drafted calls for rural areas such as Argyll and Bute to be exempted from this levy for a number of reasons outlined in the consultation response and paragraph 3.8. 3.8 Whilst it is important to recognise that in the interests of public safety this cladding needs to be removed from these buildings as soon as practicable the introduction of a building safety levy could have negative implications for the future of delivery of housing in our area where we have declared a housing emergency. In addition, the rural nature of our area and the predominance of older housing stock and low rise new build means that there is a limited number of buildings in our area that has to deal with this issue. That said, the Scottish Government hopes to raise circa £30m per annum to address the cladding issue as this is a devolved matter following the UK Government approval for the Building Safety Bill to be published in Scotland. If the levy is therefore rejected the bill is still likely to fall on Scottish tax payers in some form. 4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 The Scottish Government has launched a consultation on the Building Safety Levy that is intended to be applied to new residential buildings. The consultation covers a range of different issues including possible exemptions, Page 152
Page 153
methods of collection and identification of impacts. The proposed council response to the consultation questions has been included in Appendix 1 of this report. Given the housing emergency and the current difficulties in delivering new housing across Argyll and Bute and the limited use of high and medium rise buildings across Argyll and Bute it is considered that an exemption be applied to our Local Authority area. That said, it has to be acknowledged that there is a need to remove this form of cladding as soon as practicable from affected buildings and that the money for this will likely have to come from the tax payer. 5.0 IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Policy – None arising from the report. 5.2 Financial – None arising from this report however if the levy was introduced there may be resource implications placed on the council. 5.3 Legal – None directly arising from the report. 5.4 HR – None directly arising from the report. 5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty - 5.5.1 Equalities – Impacts are being assessed by the Scottish Government. 5.5.2 Socio-economic Duty – Impacts are being assessed by the Scottish Government. 5.5.3 Islands – included in response. 5.6 Climate Change – Cladding was installed to assist energy conservation in buildings helping to reduce heating costs and assist the delivery of net zero. Unfortunately the use of flammable cladding systems will require their removal and they will need to be replaced. 5.7 Risk – None arising from the report. 5.8 Customer Service – None arising from the report. 5.9 Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – The Scottish Government is considering potential impacts on the rights of the child. Executive Director with overall responsibility for Development and Economic Growth: Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead for Planning and Regulatory Services: Councillor Green For further information contact: Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth: fergus.murray@argyll-bute.gov.uk APPENDICES Appendix 1: Scottish Government Consultation: Scottish Building Safety Levy Draft consultation response Page 153
Page 154
Appendix 1: Scottish Government Consultation: Scottish Building Safety Levy Draft consultation response Question 1 Do you think a new tax on housebuilding, paid by developers, is a fair way to generate revenue to fund the Scottish Government’s Cladding Remediation Programme? Please give reasons for your answer No within the context of a Rural Authority. The delivery of house building in rural areas such as Argyll and Bute has become increasingly difficult due to increasing construction costs including the additional requirements of new legislation. For example, the requirement to install sprinkler systems in affordable housing and increased energy efficient measures. At this current time in Argyll and Bute the private sector has only provided 16% of the new housing required for a population that we see across Argyll and Bute. The cost of building has often been cited as a major reason for this lack of new build and relatively low income levels which limits people’s ability to raise affordable finance. The burden of house delivery across Argyll and Bute consequently lies with the public sector and Housing Associations that also struggle with increased costs of delivery. A new levy will add to this financial burden for Housing Associations and undermine the viability of future housing sites across Argyll and Bute. Question 2 Do you agree that homes delivered through the Scottish Government’s Affordable Housing Supply Programme should be removed from the Scottish Building Safety Levy? Please give reasons for your answer Yes, the delivery of house building in rural areas such as Argyll and Bute has become increasingly difficult due to increasing construction costs including the additional requirements of new legislation. For example, the requirement to install sprinkler systems in affordable housing and increased energy efficient measures. With very low levels of private sector build across Argyll and Bute (only 16% of what should be provided by the private sector for a population the size of Argyll and Bute) housing delivery relies on the public sector and work through Housing Associations and they are finding delivery of housing increasingly difficult to deliver viable housing sites due to rising construction costs and skills shortages. Question 3 What are your views on the principle of removing smaller developers from charge of the Scottish Building Safety Levy? Agreed the construction sector in Argyll and Bute predominately consists of small Page 154
Page 155
and medium sized businesses that are currently struggling with cash flows, additional costs and accessing affordable finance for their businesses. The introduction of an additional levy at this time would add to this burden at a time of increasing legislation demands such as NPF4 requirements and changes to building regulations. Question 4 If you agree that small developers should be removed from charge under a Scottish Building Safety Levy, what are your views on the method of determining who is a smaller developer? The council considers that rural authorities such as Argyll and Bute should be excluded from this levy. That said, the Government may wish to consider the number of units that are delivered on an annual basis and an analysis of the proportion that are affordable housing funded through Affordable Housing Supply channels and that are part of the private housing supply. Question 5 Are there any other exemptions from the Scottish Building Safety Levy that you think should be considered by the Scottish Government? Rural Authorities should be made exempt from the levy to simplify the collection process and taking account of the costs of delivery in rural and remote rural areas including island communities. Question 6 Are there any types of development listed in the exemptions above that you think should not be exempted from the Scottish Building Safety Levy? No Question 7 Do you have any comments on exemptions not covered by the previous questions that you wish to raise? No Question 9 In cases where a property is not sold on the open market, what alternative valuation could be used to calculate the Scottish Building Safety Levy to ensure proportionality with the market value of the property? It is important to understand that the costs of actual construction can exceed market Page 155
Page 156
value in parts of Argyll and Bute particularly in remoter and island areas. Affordable housing built by social housing providers (councils, community trusts and housing associations) need to be excluded from the levy as all it will do is add costs that may undermine the viability of delivery at a time of a housing emergency. Question 10 In relation to Question 9, do you have any information on valuations undertaken during the building standards process that would be useful for the Scottish Government to consider? Estimates are provided on build costs linked to warrant fees this is potentially a good indicator of the nd value of a particular property. Question 11 What are your views on using one of the following alternative methods of calculation for the Scottish Building Safety Levy: • Flat rate per unit • Rate based on the size (per square metre) of the property) • Rate based on the number of bedrooms of the property • Rate based on the cost of building works of the property No opinion Question 12 Do you think there should be a different rate applied on brownfield developments? Not in relation to this levy. Brownfield needs to be the first choice for new development however if the levy was to be applied to rural authorities there is very little brownfield available in most areas and the costs of delivery on greenfield can be high due to a lack of services, access issues and ground conditions. Consequently applying a higher rate to greenfield development could impact on housing delivery in these areas particularly where economies of scale is already a factor. Question 13 Do you agree that liability for the Scottish Building Safety Levy should arise in relation to the issuance of acceptance of a completion certificate? Please give reasons for your answer Yes as this is accepted position that a building is able to be occupied. Question 14 Page 156
Page 157
Do you agree that Revenue Scotland should act as the revenue authority for the Scottish Building Safety Levy? Please give reasons for your answer Yes, however the view of the council is that this levy should not be applied to a predominately rural authority such as Argyll and Bute. Question 15 Which of the following schedules do you think is the most appropriate for the frequency of returns: a) Per unit b) Monthly c) Quarterly Please give reasons for your answer. Quarterly to reduce the administrative burden Question 16 Do you agree that, in relation to the Scottish Building Safety Levy, the tax authority should have the investigatory and enforcement powers set out in Annex B? If you answered no, please give reasons for your answer. Yes Question 17 Do you agree that there should be no active conditionality between the issuance of each completion certificate and payment of the Scottish Building Safety Levy? If you answered no, please give reasons for your answer. Yes Question 18 What are your views on introducing additional sanctions for taxpayers where Revenue Scotland deem there to be persistent or major non-compliance in paying the Scottish Building Safety Levy? Additional sanctions will need to be applied where a taxpayers does not comply with Government legislation and others are complying as what happens elsewhere in the tax system. Page 157
Page 158
Question 19 Are there specific aspects of the housebuilding industry that may require a different approach to compliance than set out above? No opinion Question 20 Do you agree with our proposals for dispute resolution in relation to the Scottish Building Safety Levy? If you answered no, please give reasons for your answer. Yes Question 21 What are your views on having a sunset clause or end date for the Scottish Building Safety Levy? This will need to be applied given it’s a tax used to fix an inherent problem that hopefully will not be added to. Question 22 Do you think there should be a regular review for the Scottish Building Safety Levy? Yes as it is important to ascertain the effectiveness of any tax being collected. Please give reasons for your answer Question 23 Do you have any information which could inform any final Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (BRIA) relating to the Bill? No Question 24 Are you aware of any examples of particular current or future impacts, positive or negative, on young people, (children, pupils, and young adults up to the age of 26) of any aspect of the proposals in this consultation? No Question 25 Page 158
Page 159
Are you aware of any examples of potential impacts, either positive or negative, that you consider any of the proposals in this consultation may have on the environment? No Question 26 Are you aware of any examples of how the proposals in this consultation may impact, either positively or negatively, on those with protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation)? No Question 27 Are you aware of any examples of potential impacts, either positive or negative that you consider any of the proposals in this consultation may have on groups or areas at socio-economic disadvantage (such as income, low wealth or area deprivation)? No Question 28 Are you aware of any examples of how the proposals in this consultation might impact, positively or negatively, on island communities in a way that is different from the impact on mainland areas? It is the opinion of the council that the levy being applied to island communities will disproportionally add to the cost of delivery which is already under significant pressure as it is impacting on total numbers being built on our islands. Adding additional costs through the levy would run counter to other initiatives being taken forward by the Government such as the Islands National Plan and work to boost population in areas suffering from depopulation such as Argyll and Bute. The Government has also recognised the impact of rising housing costs in plans such as the Rural and Islands Housing Action Plan. The imposition of this levy would add to this financial burden and further undermine the viability of delivering new housing sites unless additional public funding was made available. Page 159
Page 160
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 161
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PPSL COMMITTEE Development & Economic Growth 20 November 2024 Development Management Performance Update – FQ2 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 FQ2 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) Consider 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 161 Agenda Item 10
Page 162
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. 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 FQ2 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 drafted in to the MAKI and BCHL teams with funding now identified through until Nov. 2024 as a means of supporting existing staff and improving productivity. 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, FQ2 2024/25 maintains a period of excellent performance which is all the more remarkable particularly given that officers are still familiarising themselves with a new Development Plan following the adoption of LDP2 in February of this year (Appendix 1, Sheet 2). 3.6 Improving output also means that the Service is now making significant inroads Page 162
Page 163
Classification: OFFICIAL in addressing the outstanding casework backlog (Appendix 1, Sheet 3). At the end of FQ2 2024/25 the backlog of formal casework had reduced to approximately 80 applications. 3.7 PRE-APPLICATION ENQUIRIES: Demand for pre-application advice remains high, particularly following the adoption of LDP2 in February 2024. In reporting to PPSL previously been identified that a backlog of pre-application enquiries had been accrued. Work undertaken during FQ2 to improve on this position has however identified that this position has been incorrectly reported. Analysis of open cases identified that these included a significant number of items which had been completed but not properly closed within the back office system, it was also identified that reporting for FQ3 2022/23 had failed to identify the correct number of cases closed and that this had impacted on reporting moving forward. The revised position confirms that pre-application turnover is currently on track and that only a small backlog of enquiries (less than 20) has been accrued over the period extending from FQ1 2021/22. Output during FQ2 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’. 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. FQ2 has seen 11 ‘legacy’ ‘householder’ items determined leaving only 4 more ‘legacy’ cases at the time of writing and an expectation that this should be expected to result in an improvement to the overall time measures from the next reporting period 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 75% of all householder determinations being determined in an average time of 9.6 weeks this measure is significantly impacted by the determination of the 11 older applications that have cumulatively added nearly 13.5 weeks to the average time period for determination of this KPI. These ‘legacy’ items are responsible for the overall average time period increasing from 16.1 weeks to 26.1 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 44 older Page 163
Page 164
Classification: OFFICIAL ‘legacy’ applications cumulatively add 21.5 weeks to an average time measure that reports on the determination of 176 applications in total. During FQ2 2024/25 75% 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 16.3 weeks (improvement from 19 weeks at FQ1). 60% of the total were less than 6 months old and determined in 11.5 weeks on average (improvement from 11.5 weeks in FQ1). The average time taken to determine ‘all other local applications’ has increased during FQ1 from 30.0 weeks to 37.8 weeks. It is however highlighted that the determination of 44 ‘legacy’ items is a significant increase in previous output and notwithstanding the adverse impact on the average time measure is a positive outcome. 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. During FQ2 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. 3.11 CONCLUSION: The backlog of planning casework (Appendix 1, Sheet 3) at the end of FQ2 has reduced by 70 formal applications (reduced from 150 to 80 applications). Whilst this is an improving position it is highlighted that the additional burden of the backlog volume upon existing staff resource 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 are in fact being processed within much faster timescales which are currently improving over time. 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 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 Page 164
Page 165
Classification: OFFICIAL 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 26th October 2024 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix 1 – DM Performance Update FQ 2 Page 165
Page 166
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 167
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 Statutory 517 478 508 509 511 451 508 512 457 468 404 422 469 423 2012 75.9% 1982 76.1% 1751 74.3% 892 77.5% Non-Statutory 5 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 56 2.1% 51 2.0% 87 3.7% 36 3.1% PREAPP 136 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 582 22.0% 570 21.9% 520 22.1% 223 19.4% Totals 658 656 651 685 674 607 643 679 594 631 549 584 602 549 2650 2603 2358 1151 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework received. YTD as at 30th September 2024 data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The data set covers the last 14 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 FQ 2024/25: Receipts of new applications during FQ1 2024/25 have increased slightly from the previous reporting period, and were above average when compared to 2023/24. Submission rates for FQ2 are down on the previous reporting period but remain within expected levels. 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 5 20 21 10 10 10 14 17 15 26 25 21 14 22 136 158 122 166 153 146 121 150 122 137 120 141 119 104 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 Volume of New Casework Received PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 77.5% 3.1% 19.4% Split of Casework Received: FY24/25 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Appendix 1 Page 167
Page 168
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 Statutory 410 411 393 396 410 369 402 368 476 421 458 423 464 464 1610 72.4% 1549 74.5% 1778 75.1% 928 77.1% Non-Statutory 12 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31 46 2.1% 33 1.6% 75 3.2% 48 4.0% PREAPP 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 568 25.5% 496 23.9% 513 21.7% 228 18.9% 2224 2078 2366 1204 This data is unfiltered - it shows all casework closed. data source = UNIform (Access queries) YTD as at 30th September 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 14 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 FQ2 2024/25: Productivity during FQ1 and FQ2 has been excellent and builds on the improved performance seen across 2023/24. It is noted that the adoption of LDP2 in late Feb 2024 did not give rise to the same level of disruption to output as the introduction of NPF4 in FQ4 2022/23. The continutiy of output across this period of policy change is a very positive outcome. 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 12 12 9 13 9 8 5 11 19 18 21 17 17 31134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 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 Volume of Casework Closed PREAPP Non-Statutory Statutory 77.1% 4.0% 18.9% Split of Casework Closed: FY24/25 YTD Statutory Non-Statutory PREAPP Page 168
Page 169
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 Closed 422 423 402 409 419 377 407 379 495 439 479 440 481 495 Validated 405 460 438 450 462 455 436 509 462 428 366 428 425 425 Difference (no) 17 -37 -36 -41 -43 -78 -29 -130 33 11 113 12 56 70 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. End FQ2 2024/25: The backlog of casework was reduced further during FQ1 2024/25 to just over 150 items. Productivity during FQ2 has been excellent and the backlog has been reduced by a further 70 items (80 remaning). The overall scale of the task in addressing the remaining casework backlog continues to highlight that whilst the permanent staff resource is adequate to meet 'normal' demand, additional professional officer resource continues to be required on a temporary basis in the short/medium term in order to achieve the output required to return workflow and performance expectations to 'normal' levels. Casework Turnover Rate Page 169
Page 170
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 Closed 134 172 117 145 149 119 124 104 150 109 121 133 106 122 Validated 129 162 118 153 159 137 117 140 117 132 120 130 115 92 Difference (no) 5 10 -1 -8 -10 -18 7 -36 33 -23 1 3 -9 30 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 FQ2 2024/25: The backlog of pre-apps is currently 14 items over and above 'normal' workflow. Work remains ongoing to review and improve the pre-application advice service. Correction August 2024: This graph has been revised and updated. The previous version measured closed PREAPP's against those received. This has been revised to measure against those validated - in the same way as we measure planning applications. (Numerous PREAPP's never become valid). We also took the opportunity to scrutinise the data further. Some Officer's had not been completing all necessary fields in our Uniform back office system accurately, which has now been addressed. In addition, there had been an error with the data entered against FY22/23 FQ3, which has now been corrected. The result of the above updates is that the true picture for PREAPP turnover volume is actually healthier than previosuly reported. PREAPP Turnover Rate Page 170
Page 171
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 < 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 < 6 months 87 80 92 79 71 69 82 51 43 67 63 54 50 56 < 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 6 months - 1 year 2 0 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 < 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 1 - 2 years 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 3 2 4 7 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 Over 2 years 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 Total 89 80 94 88 76 76 86 62 59 83 75 75 60 75 This data is filtered - as per Scottish Government statistical returns - to allow benchmarking. "Householder" = Development Type N01. data source = UNIform (Access queries) Commentary: The line graph shows performance over time; the bar graph shows the proportionate split between 'legacy' casework and newer items. A comparison of the two demonstrates that the 'All Determined' average can be readily impacted by the determination of a small number of 'legacy' applications. The improving resource availability has allowed the focus of the DM Service from FQ1 2023/24 to move from addressing the most urgent applications to also addressing the wider backlog of application casework. Increasing output does however mean that a high volume of 'legacy' applications continue to be determined with significant deteriment to average time measures as is seen with the deterioration of performance across FQ4 2022/23 to FQ4 2023/24. In order to provide some context additional information is provided that demonstrates the effect of removing older applications from reporting to provide a truer picture of the time taken to deliver the larger proportion of casework. The bar graph provides this breakdown in a format which shows the increasing volume of older applications currently being determined but also confirms that a significant proportion of output is still undertaken in a timely manner. Peformance during FQ1 2024/25 has shown a marked improvement which demonstrates that the majority of householder applications are now being determined in much shorter time periods. End FQ2 2024/25: During FQ2 to date, eleven 'legacy' items have been determined with a consequent impact of 13.5 weeks on average time measures. It is noted that this outcome demonstrates the significant adverse impact that the determination of a small number of older items has upon average time reporting measures. During FQ2 Local applications (excluding householder) have been determined in an average of 26.1 weeks (increase from 16.1 weeks in FQ1 24/25). Discounting the effect of those 11 legacy cases it is however evident that underlying performance on the larger volume of applications determined is much healthier. During FQ2 the determination of non-legacy householder applications were undertaken in an average of 12.6 weeks (slight increase from 12.4 weeks in FQ1 24/25). It is also highlighted that 75% of all householder applications in FQ2 were newer items determined in an average time of 9.6 weeks (no change from 9.6 weeks in FQ1 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 12.6 19.0 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 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 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 2 1 8 5 6 4 11 13 12 9 19 6 8 1 1 1 4 3 2 4 7 1 2 4 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 % Split: Householder (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 171
Page 172
Classification: OFFICIAL# FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 FY21/22 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY22/23 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY23/24 FQ1 FQ2 FQ3 FQ4 FY24/25 FQ1 FQ2 < 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 < 6 months 158 142 118 125 114 110 104 69 87 106 95 79 97 106 < 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 6 months - 1 year 12 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 < 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 1 - 2 years 6 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 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 Over 2 years 0 2 4 3 1 1 0 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 Total 176 167 136 141 132 136 153 105 129 156 155 144 163 176 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 FQ2 2024/25: FQ2 has seen 44 legacy applications cleared with the effect of adding 21.5 weeks to the overall average time measure which now sits at 37.8 weeks (increase from 30 weeks in FQ1 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 those 44 legacy cases it is however evident that performance overall is continuing to show improvement. During FQ2 the determination of non-legacy local applications were undertaken in an average of 16.3 weeks (decrease from 19 weeks in FQ1 24/25). It is also highlighted that 60% of all local applications in FQ2 were newer items determined in an average time of 11.5 weeks (decrease from 11.6 weeks in FQ1 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 16.314.6 24.5 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 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 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 12 20 13 11 14 19 43 25 31 27 32 40 39 26 6 3 1 2 3 6 6 10 7 20 22 19 23 25 2 4 3 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 4 19 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 % Split: Local (excluding Householder) (<6 Month, <1 Year, <2 Year, All) < 6 months 6 months - 1 year 1 - 2 years Over 2 years Page 172
Page 173
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL & REGULATORY SUPPORT 20 NOVEMBER 2024 PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee agreed at their meeting on 18 November 2020 that Officers should prepare periodic reports at least every six months providing updates on the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area. Page 173 Agenda Item 11
Page 174
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES & LICENSING COMMITTEE LEGAL & REGULATORY SUPPORT 20 NOVEMBER 2024 PRIVATE HIRE CARS AND TAXIS LICENSED IN ARGYLL & BUTE 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Following publication of the Scottish Government’s best practice guidance on the power to refuse to grant private hire licences on the grounds of over provision, consideration was given to a report inviting Members to amend the procedure for determining private hire car licence applications. The Committee agreed at their meeting on 18th November 2020: a) that all future unopposed applications for private hire car licences may be granted by Officers on a delegated basis; and b) that Officers should prepare periodic reports at least every six months, for the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee providing updates on the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area. The last report was considered by the Committee on 22 May 2024. 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 That the members note the number of private hire cars and taxis across the licensing authority’s area as detailed in Appendix 1 and 2. 4.0 DETAIL 4.1 The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the numbers. 5.0 CONCLUSION Page 174
Page 175
5.1 An update of these figures will be provided on a 6 monthly basis. 6.0 IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Policy: None 6.2 Financial: None 6.3 Legal: None 6.4 HR: None 6.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 6.5.1 Equalities - protected characteristics 6.5.2 Socio-economic Duty 6.5.3 Islands 6.6 Climate Change: None 6.7 Risk: none 6.8 Customer Service: None Douglas Hendry Executive Director with responsibility for Legal and Regulatory Support Policy Lead Kieron Green 22 October 2024 For further information contact: Sheila MacFadyen Ext: 4265 Appendix 1 – Statistics on Number of Taxi Licences Appendix 2 – Statistics on Number of Private Hire Licences Page 175
Page 176
Appendix 1 STATISTICS ON NUMBER OF TAXI LICENCES – ARGYLL AND BUTE – October 2024 Area No. Taxis referenced in LVSA Report 2019 No. Licences lapsed since LVSA report New licences granted since LVSA report Licences surrendered since LVSA report Current Total (after 2024 renewals) No. Licences as at May 2024 Bute & Cowal 57 Mistake on report Actual no. 54 0 1 6 49 55 Helensburgh & Lomond 48 6 21 12 51 49 Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay 24 6 2 1 19 23 Oban, Lorn & Isles 52 10 5 3 44 51 Page 176
Page 177
Appendix 2 STATISTICS ON NUMBER OF PRIVATE HIRE CAR LICENCES (with addresses in the areas) – ARGYLL AND BUTE – October 2024 Area No. Private Hire Car referenced in LVSA Report 2019 No. Licences lapsed since LVSA report New licences granted since LVSA report Licences surrendered since LVSA report Current Total (after 2024 renewals) No. as at May 2024 Bute & Cowal 1 6 5 0 0 4 Helensburgh & Lomond 14 8 13 6 13 8 Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay 37 11 16 5 37 33 Oban, Lorn & Isles 16 3 2 4 11 10 Page 177
Page 178
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 179
Document is Restricted Page 179 Agenda Item 12NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 180
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 181
Document is Restricted Page 183 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 182
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 183
Document is Restricted Page 185 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 184
This page is intentionally left blank