Public reports pack
Argyll and Bute Council · 18 September 2024
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 18 September 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-Ghàidheal Agus Bhòid Executive Director: Douglas Hendry Kilmory, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 602127 Fax: 01546 604435 DX 599700 LOCHGILPHEAD 11 September 2024 NOTICE OF MEETING A meeting of the PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE will be held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 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 21 August 2024 at 11.00 am (Pages 5 - 24) (b) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 21 August 2024 at 2.00 pm (Pages 25 - 36) (c) Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 29 August 2024 (Pages 37 - 46) 4. BEATON AND MCMURCHY ARCHITECTS LTD: SITE FOR THE ERECTION OF DWELLINGHOUSE: LAND NORTH OF LYNBURN, ROWAN ROAD, OBAN (REF: 22/01986/PPP) (Pages 47 - 56) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 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) (Pages 57 - 106) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth Public Document Pack
Page 2
6. BAKKAFROST SCOTLAND LTD: FORMATION OF FISH FARM (ATLANTIC SALMON) INCORPORATING 8 X 160M CIRCUMFERANCE CIRCULAR CAGES AND SITING OF FEED BARGE: WEST OF ISLE OF GIGHA (REF: 23/01758/MFF) (Pages 107 - 166) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 7. FYNE HOMES: ERECTION OF EIGHT AFFORDABLE DWELLINGHOUSES AND FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESSES: VACANT LAND AT JUNCTION OF BALLOCHGOY ROAD AND BLAIN TERRACE, ROTHESAY, ISLE OF BUTE (REF: 24/00564/PP) (Pages 167 - 202) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 8. MS LIZ MAXWELL: DEMOLITON OF EXISTING DWELLINGHOUSE AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLINGHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: COMRAICH, MANNAL, ISLE OF TIREE (REF: 24/01153/PP) (Pages 203 - 232) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 9. CLAN CAMPBELL (WHISKY) LTD: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR WHISKY DISTILLERY, DUNNAGE WAREHOUSE, VISITOR EXPERIENCE AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE: INVERARAY CASTLE ESTATE, INVERARAY (REF: 24/01438/PAN) (Pages 233 - 240) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 10. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE PLAN 2024 - 2026 (Pages 241 - 284) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth 11. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT CHARTER 2024 (Pages 285 - 294) Report by Executive Director of Development and Economic Growth 12. UPDATED PLANNING ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING CHARTER 2024 (Pages 295 - 316) Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth REPORTS FOR NOTING 13. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISION (Pages 317 - 318) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth 14. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 37 DECISION (Pages 319 - 324) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth EXEMPT REPORTS FOR DECISION E1 15. ENFORCEMENT REPORT - REFERENCE 15/00051/ENAMEN (Pages 325 - 356) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth E1 16. REQUEST FOR A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER (Pages 357 - 366) Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth
Page 3
The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. The appropriate paragraph is: E1 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes- (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment. Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair (Vice-Chair) Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Daniel Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Peter Wallace Contact: Fiona McCallum Tel. No. 01546 604392
Page 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, 21 AUGUST 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Paul Donald Kennedy Councillor Liz McCabe Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: David Logan, Head of Legal and Regulatory Support Shona Barton, Governance Manager Peter Bain, Development Manager Sandra Davies, Major Applications Team Leader Bryn Bowker, Area Team Leader David Moore, Senior Planning Officer Stuart Ramsay, Senior Planning Officer Lesley Cuthbertson, Planning Officer Emma Shaw, Planning Officer 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Daniel Hampsey 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 17 June 2024 was approved as a correct record. b) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 June 2024 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. c) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 June 2024 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. d) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 June 2024 at 3.00 pm was approved as a correct record. e) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 19 June 2024 at 4.00 pm was approved as a correct record. f) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 26 June 2024 was approved as a correct record. Page 5 Agenda Item 3a
Page 6
g) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 6 August 2024 at 10.00 am was approved as a correct record. h) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 6 August 2024 at 11.00 am was approved as a correct record. i) The Minute of the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee held on 6 August 2024 at 2.00 pm was approved as a correct record. 4. ROCKHILL FARM LTD: PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF BARN AND FARMHOUSE TO FORM SELF-CATERING TOURIST ACCOMMODATION TOGETHER WITH ERECTION OF SELF-CATERING TOURIST ACCOMMODATION (3 UNITS), INSTALLATION OF FLOATING JETTY, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS: ROCKHILL, ARDBRECKNISH, DALMALLY (REF: 21/02265/PP) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. This application site lies within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area’ where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. The site lies within a designated Local Landscape Area (formerly Area of Panoramic Quality) where LDP2 seeks to promote a flexible approach to small scale development in the Countryside through Policies 02 and 71. A total of 44 objections and 6 expressions of support have been received in respect of this application. There have been no objections received from statutory consultees. The main concerns raised by objectors relate to biodiversity, water and drainage, noise and light emanating from the site and construction vehicles entering the site. It is the opinion of Planning Officers that a suite of safeguarding conditions can address these concerns raised. It is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the report of handling and it is not considered that a discretionary hearing would add value to the planning process. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy and it was recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons detailed in the report of handling. Decision The Committee agreed to grant planning permission 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 Page 6
Page 7
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 25.10.2021; 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 Site Plan As Existing 10/010 Rev A 18.03.2024 Site Plan as Proposed 20/001 Rev E 18.03.2024 Site Plan as Proposed 1:500 20/001 Site Plan as Proposed 1:5000 20/001 Rev E 18.03.2024 Farmhouse & Barn Plan As Existing 20/001 Rev B 18.03.2024 Farmhouse & Barn Elevations As Existing 20/001 Rev A 01.12.2021 Farm Guesthouse Barn Elevations as Proposed 20/001 Rev C 18.03.2024 Farmhouse & Barn Plan as Proposed 20/001 Rev C 18.03.2024 Drainage and water supply layout 21-017-20 Rev C 18.03.2024 Landscape Planting Plan 18.03.2024 Cottage A1 Elevation as Proposed 20/001 Rev A 18.03.2024 Cottage A1, Plan as Proposed 20/001 Rev A 18.03.2024 Cottage A2 Elevations as Proposed 20/001 Rev A 18.03.2024 Cottage A2 Plan as Proposed 20/001 Rev A 18.03.2024 Cottage C Elevations as Proposed 20/001 Rev A 18.03.2024 Cottage C Plan as Proposed 20/001 Rev A 18.03.2024 Section as Proposed 20/001 Rev E 18.03.2024 Rendered Visualisations 18.03.2024 Page 7
Page 8
Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – Vehicular Access No development shall commence until plans and particulars of the means of vehicular access to serve the development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority. Such details shall incorporate: i) Details of upgrades to the existing private access track (within ownership control of the applicant) with intervisible passing places required at intervals of no more than 150m.Track width to be a minimum of 3.7m. Level 2m verge/step off on one side of track required; ii) Total length of unpaved access track (within ownership control of the applicant) surface requires upgrade including grading/leveling of surface, voids, potholes, rutting to be filled, levelled and compacted, using bituminous bound material and regularly maintained as required; iii) Details of parking and turning for two vehicles for each of the proposed self catering units; parking and turning for three vehicles for the farmhouse and 2 for the barn conversion: iv) Details of a turning head to Figure 18 of the Roads Development Guide to be provided within the farm yard area The upgrades to the existing private access track (within ownership control of the applicant) shall be completed prior to the development first being brought into use. Reason: In the interests of road safety. 3. PP – Surface Water Drainage – Further detail required Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, no development shall commence until details of the intended means of surface water drainage to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full concurrently with the development that it is intended to serve and shall be operational prior to the occupation of the development and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. Note to Applicant: Regard should be had to SEPA’s consultation comments in relation to the proposed development. 4. PP – Landscaping Scheme and Biodiversity Enhancement Measures No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Page 8
Page 9
Planning Authority. The scheme shall comprise a planting plan and schedule which shall include details of: i) Existing and proposed ground levels in relation to an identified fixed datum; ii) Existing landscaping features and vegetation to be retained; Details shall include tree protection measures to ensure that the trees which are located along the boundary of the eastern side of plot 7 are retained and maintained in perpetuity. iii) Location design and materials of proposed walls, fences and gates; iv) Proposed soft and hard landscaping works including the location, species and size of every tree/shrub to be planted; v) A programme for the timing, method of implementation, completion and subsequent on-going maintenance; vi) A biodiversity statement demonstrating how the proposal will contribute to conservation/restoration/enhancement of biodiversity, and how these benefits will be maintained for the lifetime of the development. All of the hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which within a period of five years from the completion of the approved landscaping scheme fail to become established, die, become seriously diseased, or are removed or damaged shall be replaced in the following planting season with equivalent numbers, sizes and species as those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All physical biodiversity enhancement measures (bird nesting boxes, ‘swift bricks’, wildlife ponds, bat and insect boxes, hedgehog homes etc.) shall be implemented in full before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. 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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity and in order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Note to Applicant The applicant is advised to observe the content of the consultation response which has been received from the Councils Biodiversity Officer. 5. PP – Finishing Materials Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until written details of the proposed external finishing materials to be used in the construction of the proposed development including details of the proposed decking 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. Page 9
Page 10
Reason: In order to integrate the development into its surroundings. 6. PP – 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 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. 7. PP – Outdoor Access Plan No development shall commence until a detailed Outdoor Access Plan of public access across the site (as existing, during construction and following completion) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The plan shall include details showing: i) All existing access points, paths, core paths, tracks, rights of way and other routes (whether on land or inland water), and any areas currently outwith or excluded from statutory access rights under Part One of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, within and adjacent to the application site; ii) Any areas proposed for exclusion from statutory access rights, for reasons of privacy, disturbance or effect on curtilage related to proposed buildings or structures; iii) All proposed paths, tracks and other routes for use by walkers, riders, cyclists, all- abilities users, etc. and any other relevant outdoor access enhancement (including construction specifications, signage, information leaflets, proposals for on-going maintenance etc.); iv) Any diversion of paths, tracks or other routes temporary or permanent, proposed as part of the development (including details of mitigation measures, diversion works, duration and signage). Page 10
Page 11
The approved Outdoor Access Plan, and any associated works, shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development or as otherwise may be agreed within the approved plan. Reason: In order to safeguard public access both during and after the construction phase of the development. Note to Applicant: The applicant is advised to observe the consultation response which has been received from the Council’s Access Manager. 8. PP – Contaminated Land No development shall commence until an assessment of the condition of the land has been undertaken, submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The assessment shall determine the nature and extent of any contamination on the site and identify any potential risks to human health, the water environment, property or designated ecological sites. Where contamination is identified, then a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use must be prepared and be subject to the approval in writing of the Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation. Any approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development with the exception of those actions required to carry out remediation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that contamination issues on the site have been fully investigated and remediated. Note to Applicant: Regulatory requirements for land contamination issues should be discussed with the Council’s Environmental Health Officers in the first instance. The floating jetty shall be used solely for recreational purposes by the residents of Rockhill Farm Estate and for no commercial purposes. Reason: To define the permission on the basis of the Planning Authority’s assessment of the use applied for. 9. That the Farm Guesthouse (1) and Barn Conversion (4), as annotated on Drawing No 20/001, Rev E – Site Plan As proposed, shall not be subdivided and used solely for the provision of 2 separate self catering holiday letting units. Page 11
Page 12
Reason: To define the permission on the basis of the Planning Authority’s assessment of the use applied for. 10. PP– Short Term Residential Accommodation (e.g. Holiday Letting) Notwithstanding the provisions of Class 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Scotland) Order 1997 the residential accommodation hereby approved shall be used for short term holiday occupancy only and not as a main residence and shall not be occupied by any family, group or individual for a cumulative period of more than three calendar months in any one year. A register showing dates of arrivals and departures shall be maintained at the premises and shall be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Planning Authority. Reason: To define the permission on the basis of the Planning Authority’s assessment of the use applied for. Note to Applicant: • For the avoidance of doubt this permission only provides for the occupation of the premises on a short term basis on the grounds that the development is unsuited to full time residential occupation. Specifically the occupation of the premises as a dwelling shall require the benefit of a separate planning permission. 11. PP – Site Waste Management Plan No development shall commence until a detailed Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) during construction has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The plan shall include details for the management of pollution prevention monitoring and mitigation measures for all construction activities The approved SWMP shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development or as otherwise may be agreed within the approved plan. Reason: In order to ensure that effective provision for waste/recycling is provided. 12. No development shall commence until full details of any external lighting to be used within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall include the location, type, angle of direction and wattage of each light which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with the duly approved scheme. Reason: In order to avoid light pollution in the interest of amenity. Note to Applicant: All external lighting should be designed in accordance with the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note “Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Light Energy Consumption” 2007, Annexes A and B. Site specific advice may be obtained by contacting the Council’s Environmental Health Officers. Page 12
Page 13
13. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, co construction plant and/or machinery shall be operated on the site outwith the following times: • Monday to Friday: 08:00-18:00 • Saturday: 08:00-13:00 • Sunday: No noisy work to be carried out at any time Reason: In order to protect the amenity of the area in terms of nuisance. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 August 2024, submitted) Councillor Mark Irvine left the meeting during consideration of the foregoing item. 5. CALA MANAGEMENT LIMITED: APPROVAL OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN CONDITIONS 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 AND 17 OF CONSENT 18/01444/PP (PPA-130-2071): ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, INFRASTRUCTURE, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKS: LAND NORTH OF CARDROSS PRIMARY SCHOOL, BARRS ROAD, CARDROSS: (REF: 23/00144/AMSC) This application was considered at a discretionary hearing on 17 June 2024 where the Committee agreed to continue consideration to allow Members to seek advice of Officers on the preparation of a competent Motion. It was noted that only those Members present today that attended the discretionary hearing could take part in the determination of the application. Councillors John Armour and Audrey Forrest left the meeting at this point. Motion To agree that the AMSC permission be approved as per Officer recommendation within the main report, with the minor correction that the referenced drainage strategy within the approved supporting documents is amended to the Issue 5 drainage strategy submission dated 10.6.24. Moved by Councillor Gordon Blair, seconded by Councillor Liz McCabe. Amendment The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee; • Notes that satisfactory operation of the proposed drainage scheme relies on attenuation provided by an existing pond located on third party land to the south-west of the application site. • Considers the pond is an integral component of the overall drainage solution for the site as water discharged from the development will pass through this existing water feature prior to entering the Geilston Burn. Page 13
Page 14
• Recognises that the developer has put forward a competent Surface Water Drainage (SuDS) Scheme, as required by condition 12, but further notes that the proposal also includes for the redirection and the discharge of unattenuated surface water flow from the existing housing development at Kilmahew Avenue, Grove and Court into this pond that will increase flows into the pond. • Finds that insufficient technical details have been submitted to confirm the attenuation properties of the pond and its capacity to accommodate the additional surface water discharge. • Finds that insufficient technical details have been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed drainage scheme will not give rise to unacceptable harm through flooding to the residential property known as ‘The Glen’ should the combined discharges lead to the pond overtopping its sidewalls. • Therefore finds that condition 11 has not been satisfied, and consequently refuses the Approval of Matters the subject of Conditions (AMSC) permission. Moved by Councillor Kieron Green, seconded by Councillor Paul Kennedy. A vote was taken by calling the roll. Motion Amendment Councillor Blair Councillor Brown Councillor Kain Councillor Green Councillor McCabe Councillor Hardie Councillor Wallace Councillor Howard Councillor Kennedy The Amendment was carried by 5 votes to 4 and the Committee resolved accordingly. Decision The Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee; • Noted that satisfactory operation of the proposed drainage scheme relied on attenuation provided by an existing pond located on third party land to the south-west of the application site. • Considered the pond was an integral component of the overall drainage solution for the site as water discharged from the development would pass through this existing water feature prior to entering the Geilston Burn. • Recognised that the developer had put forward a competent Surface Water Drainage (SuDS) Scheme, as required by condition 12, but further noted that the proposal also included for the redirection and the discharge of unattenuated surface water flow from the existing housing development at Kilmahew Avenue, Grove and Court into this pond that would increase flows into the pond. • Found that insufficient technical details had been submitted to confirm the attenuation properties of the pond and its capacity to accommodate the additional surface water discharge. Page 14
Page 15
• Found that insufficient technical details had been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed drainage scheme would not give rise to unacceptable harm through flooding to the residential property known as ‘The Glen’ should the combined discharges lead to the pond overtopping its sidewalls. • Therefore found that condition 11 had not been satisfied, and consequently refused the Approval of Matters the subject of Conditions (AMSC) permission. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 March 2024 and supplementary report number 1 dated 13 June 2024, submitted) Councillors John Armour and Audrey Forrest returned to the meeting. 6. 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) The Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. This application was presented to the PPSL Committee on 22 May 2024 and the Committee agreed to request from Planning Officers information on what impact this proposed development would have on access to, and operation of, the remaining agricultural land in terms of Police 83 of LDP2 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft Land. Planning Officers have sought further information from both the Applicant and the tenant farmer and a request was made to continue consideration of the application to the PPSL Committee meeting on 18 September 2024 to allow for the requested information to be prepared. Decision The Committee agreed to note the content of the report and continue consideration of the application to the meeting of the PPSL Committee on 18 September 2024 to allow for the requested information to be prepared. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 8 May 2024, supplementary report number 21 May 2024, supplementary report number 2 dated 10 June 2024 and supplementary report number 3 dated 12 August 2024, submitted) 7. MRS HELEN TOMOLILLO: CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER CHURCH TO FORM DWELLINGHOUSE, FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY, ERECTION OF GARAGE/CARPORT, FORMATION OF OPENING IN BOUNDARY WALL TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: KILMICHAEL GLASSARY PARISH CHURCH (REF: 23/01367/PP) The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report. Before proceeding with the presentation he pointed out a couple of minor errors in the report which did not have a material bearing on the recommendation before Members. The first being at section A(1) – he confirmed that it was a change of use from Church Class 10 to Dwellinghouse Class 9, and not Class 4. The second being at Section 7 of Appendix A – reference is made to a private treatment plant. It was confirmed it was a private sewage pump. The intention of the Applicant was to connect to Scottish Water’s waste water treatment works. Page 15
Page 16
A Listed Building Consent Application reference no 23/01369/LIB) has been submitted in association with this planning application and a separate report is also before Members. The listed building application considers in greater detail the physical alterations proposed to the listed Parish Church and Churchyard wall. In terms of the Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2) the site’s location straddles Kilmichael/Bridgend village within a Settlement Area and Countryside Area. Officers are of the view that the physical alterations to the listed building and listed wall would preserve the special interest of both listed structures. However, Officers consider that the adjoining graveyard forms a key part of the setting of the Listed Parish Church, making a significant and positive contribution to its sense of place, understanding, experience and appreciation. It is considered that the proposed change of use of the church to a residential dwelling would significantly alter the relationship the Parish Church would have with its graveyard, to the extent that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. Officers are also of the view that the proximity of the proposed dwelling to an existing publicly accessible graveyard are land uses that would be incompatible with one another, with resultant harm to the privacy of future occupants of the proposed dwelling, and the privacy and quiet use of the graveyard by the public. It is acknowledged that a number of representations, both in support and in objection, have been received in response to this proposal. 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 a hearing. As such, it is considered unlikely that a pre-determination hearing would add value to the decision making process. It was recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report Decision The Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: 1. Kilmichael Glassary Parish Church is a Category B Listed Building and its associated adjoining graveyard forms part a key part of its setting, making a significant and positive contribution to its sense of place, understanding, experience and appreciation. The proposed change of use of the former parish church to a residential dwelling would significantly alter the relationship the Category B Listed Building Parish Church would have with its associated graveyard, to the extent that the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. 2. The operational graveyard adjoining the proposed dwelling is accessible to the public and attracts visitors who would have a reasonable expectation to move freely around the public space at any time during night and day. Noting the proximity of the graveyard to the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the privacy of future occupants of the dwelling would be unacceptably harmed In addition, by nature of the change of use proposed, future occupants of the proposed dwelling would overlook the adjoining graveyard, and likely generate noise and Page 16
Page 17
disturbance within close proximity of the graveyard. The loss of privacy, and high likelihood of noise and disturbance would have a materially harmful impact on the general public using this space, who would have a reasonable expectation of the operational graveyard being a quiet and private place for reflection and contemplation As such, it is considered that the proposed residential conversion of the vacant church would be incompatible with the existing adjoining use of an open and operational graveyard, with reference to the resultant identified harm to the amenity of future residents and users of the publically accessible graveyard. As such, the proposal would be contrary to LDP2 policies 01, 05, 08,14, 66c) and NPF4 Policy 14c). 3. With reference to comments received from the West of Scotland Archaeology Service, the site has a long history and, if confirmed, the presence of highly significant buried remains could result for a recommendation of refusal. It is noted that excavation works to install infrastructure required to facilitate the proposed change of use would be within the graveyard. In the absence of any archaeological evaluation works undertaken prior to the determination of the planning application, there is significant uncertainty regarding the effect of the proposal in archaeological terms. Therefore the proposed development is considered to be contrary with NPF4 Policy, 7(o) and ABC LDP2 Policy 21, Sites of Archaeological Importance. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 August 2024, submitted) 8. MRS HELEN TOMOLILLO: EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO FORMER CHURCH TO FORM DWELLINGHOUSE INCLUDING FORMATION OF OPENING IN BOUNDARY WALL TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS: KILMICHAEL GLASSARY PARISH CHURCH (REF: 23/01369/LIB) The Area Team Leader spoke to the terms of the report. Listed building consent is sought for a number of external and internal alterations to Kilmichael Glassary Parish Church (Category B Listed) and Churchyard Wall (also Category B Listed) as part of the conversion of the church to a dwellinghouse. While the proposed change of land use to a dwellinghouse requires planning permission, it does not require listed building consent. As such, the assessment of the proposed change of land use is contained with the report of handling for planning application reference 23/01367/PP which was also before Members today. It is noted that a significant proportion of the representations received in response to this listed building application raise points more relevant to the accompanying planning application rather than this proposal. This application for listed building consent relates solely to the physical changes proposed to the Church and Churchyard wall. For the reasons set out in Appendix A of the report, it is considered the physical alterations proposed to both the listed Churchyard Wall and Parish Church building would preserve the special interest of both listed building/structures and its setting. On this basis, subject to conditions, Officers consider that the proposal would meet the requirements of Section 14 of the Act and relevant policies and it was recommended that listed building consent be granted for the proposed alterations. Page 17
Page 18
Decision The Committee agreed to grant listed building consent subject to the following conditions and reasons and agreed to delegate authority to Officers to include an additional condition (no 3) to ensure access to the churchyard was maintained for the public during the construction process: Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Additional Conditions 1. LIB - Approved Details & Standard Notes – Non EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 13.07.2024, supporting information, and the approved drawings listed in the table below. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan 2906/103 14.07.2024 Existing Floor Plan 2906/103 14.07.2024 Existing North Elevation 2906/106 14.07.2024 Existing South Elevation 2906/104 14.07.2024 Existing West Elevation 2906/105 14.07.2024 Existing East Elevation 2906/107 14.07.2024 External Stair Sections A-A Existing and Proposed 2906/117 27.07.2024 Proposed North Elevation 2906/112 20.07.2024 Proposed South Elevation 2906/110 20.07.2024 Proposed West Elevation 2906/111 20.07.2024 Proposed East Elevation 2906/113 20.07.2024 Proposed Ground Floor Plan 2906/108 14.07.2024 Proposed First Floor Plan 2906/109 14.07.2024 Proposed Site Plan 2906/102 20.07.2024 Rooflight Detail CR_CRSF_LS_B 20.07.2024 Rooflight Technical Data Form QD349 20.07.2024 Page 18
Page 19
Sheet Window Details, Heritage System Data Sheet BR_IS25 Rev G 20.07.2024 Window Schedule 1-2 2906/118 20.07.2024 Window Schedule 2-2 2906/119 20.07.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. Note to Applicant: This consent will last only for three years from the date of this decision notice, unless the development has been started within that period [See section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended).] 2. The proposed works shall not commence until a detailed scheme to demonstrate how the existing pulpit and pews are to be incorporated into the proposal has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter the proposal shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to safeguard the special interest of the Category B Listed Parish Church. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 7 August 2024, submitted) The Chair ruled, and the Committee agreed, to take a 15 minute break at this point. The Committee reconvened at 1.35 pm with all Members present as per the sederunt with the exception of Councillor Mark Irvine. Page 19
Page 20
9. LINK GROUP LTD: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING RETAIL UNITS (CLASS 1); FINANCIAL, PROFESSIONAL & OTHER SERVICES UNITS (CLASS 2); FOOD & DRINK UNITS (CLASS 3) INCLUDING DRIVE THROUGHS, HOT FOOD TAKEAWAYS & PUBLIC HOUSE; BUSINESS UNITS (CLASS 4) INCLUDING OFFICES AND LIGHT INDUSTRY; STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION UNITS (CLASS 6); HOTEL (CLASS 7); RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (DUNBEG PHASE 4) (CLASS 9 HOUSES & SUI GENERIS FLATS) INCL. SOCIAL HOUSING, PRIVATE HOUSING, STUDENT ACCOMMODATION & RETIREMENT ACCOMMODATION WITH SHARED COMMUNITY SPACE, ASSEMBLY & LEISURE (CLASS 11); SITE FOR PARK & RIDE FACILITY; EV CHARGING POINTS; NEW ROUNDABOUT ON A85, DISTRIBUTOR ROAD & OTHER ROADS, PARKING & SERVICING AREAS; GROUND REMODELLING; ABOVE & BELOW GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING SUDS; OPEN SPACE & LANDSCAPING INCLUDING BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT; MODIFICATION TO CORE PATH NETWORK; PEAT MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION: LAND WEST OF DUNSTAFFNAGE MAINS FARM, DUNBEG (REF: 24/01214/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. Three separate Proposal of Application Notices (PANs) have been submitted for future development at Dunbeg. All of the PANs relate to the next phases of development for residential, commercial, community facilities and roads infrastructure associated with the approved Masterplan (reference 16/03368/MPLAN) and LDP2 Allocations and Objectives. This PAN seeks to include all proposed development associated with the future development of Dunbeg (Phase 4). The wider site is a mixture of primarily south facing hillside and outcrops, undulating land and lower flat land nearer the A85 which has some deep peat deposits within it, particularly in respect of the area of land identified for the commercial use and access road next to the proposed “halfway” roundabout. The area is also subject to flooding. The site is bisected by National cycle route C198 between Ganavan and Dunbeg and there are many informal paths on the northern parts of the site on the hillsides which are used for recreational purposes by residents and visitors. Core Path C163 also traverses the northern edge of the larger site. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matter be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission – Page 20
Page 21
• Opportunities for allowing access to commercial areas via sustainable public transport and minimising use of cars would be welcome. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 21 August 2024, submitted) 10. LINK GROUP LTD: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING RETAIL UNITS (CLASS 1); RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (DUNBEG PHASE 4) (CLASS 9 HOUSES AND SUI GENERIS FLATS) INCLUDING SOCIAL HOUSING, PRIVATE HOUSING, STUDENT ACCOMMODATION AND RETIREMENT ACCOMMODATION WITH SHARED COMMUNITY SPACE, ASSEMBLY AND LEISURE (CLASS 11); EV CHARGING POINTS; NEW ROUNDABOUT ON A85, DISTRIBUTOR ROAD AND OTHER ROADS, PARKING AND SERVICING AREAS; GROUND REMODELLING; ABOVE GROUND AND BELOW GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING SUDS; OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT; MODIFICATION TO CORE PATH NETWORK; AND PEAT MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION: LAND WEST OF DUNSTAFFNAGE MAINS FARM, DUNBEG (REF: 24/01212/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. This Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) relates primarily to intended future residential development, associated community facilities, and other necessary infrastructure and restoration/landscaping works. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matter be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission – • Opportunities for allowing access to commercial areas via sustainable public transport and minimising use of cars would be welcome. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 21 August 2024, submitted) Page 21
Page 22
11. LINK GROUP LTD: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING RETAIL UNITS (CLASS 1); FINANCIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER SERVICES UNITS (CLASS 2); FOOD AND DRINK UNITS (CLASS 3) INCLUDING DRIVE THROUGHS, HOT FOOD TAKEAWAYS AND PUBLIC HOUSE; BUSINESS UNITS (CLASS 4) INCLUDING OFFICES AND LIGHT INDUSTRY; STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION UNITS (CLASS 6); HOTEL (CLASS 7); SITE FOR PARK AND RIDE FACILITY; EV CHARGING POINTS; NEW ROUNDABOUT ON A85, DISTRIBUTOR ROAD AND OTHER ROADS, PARKING AND SERVICING AREAS; GROUND REMODELLING; ABOVE GROUND AND BELOW GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING SUDS; OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT; MODIFICATION TO CORE PATH NETWORK; AND PEAT MANAGEMENT AND RESTORATION: LAND WEST OF DUNSTAFFNAGE MAINS FARM, DUNBEG (REF: 24/01213/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. This Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) relates primarily to intended future mixed commercial development and other necessary infrastructure and restoration/landscaping works. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matter be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission – • Opportunities for allowing access to commercial areas via sustainable public transport and minimising use of cars would be welcome. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 21 August 2024, submitted) 12. TAYLOR WIMPEY: PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE ACCESS, ROADS, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS: LAND AT GEILSTON FARM, CARDROSS ROAD/A814, CARDROSS (REF: 24/01391/PAN) The Senior Planning Officer spoke to the terms of the report. The proposed site is located on open farmland set on the western edge of the village of Cardross, to the south of the main A814 road. In terms of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 (2024), the site is located within the designated Helensburgh and Lomond green belt and in terms of spatial strategy, is within the Helensburgh and Lomond Growth area. The proposed site bounds the Cardross settlement area to the east. The site itself if not subject to any additional Page 22
Page 23
constraints, although the woodland area to the immediate east of the site, Geilston Burn, is a designated SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) and an area of ancient woodland. The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the Proposal of Application Notice (PAN) and summarises the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. It was recommended that Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of the PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the Applicant in finalising any future planning application submission. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report and requested that the following matters be given consideration in finalising any future planning application submission – • Land prone to flooding. Demonstrate through not just the production of surface water drainage and attenuation for land being built on but also for land elsewhere to prevent flooding to neighbouring properties and land eg railway line. • Capacity of Scottish Water infrastructure to cope with additional connections to sewage treatment works. • Capacity of local primary school. • Consider housing needs of area itself in terms of size of houses. • Consider more than 25% affordable housing. • Capacity of road through the village of Cardross to accommodate additional traffic and construction traffic. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 1 August 2024, submitted) Councillor Peter Wallace left during consideration of the foregoing item. 13. DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE - FQ1 2024/25 A report providing an update on the performance of the Development Management Service for the reporting period FA1 2024/25 was considered. Decision The Committee considered and noted the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Executive Director with responsibility for Development and Economic Growth dated 1 August 2024, submitted) Page 23
Page 24
14. UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS A report summarising a recent decision by Scottish Ministers in relation to a Local Review Board appeal decision (reference 23/0003/LRB) which was called in for Ministers determination was before the Committee for information. Decision The Committee noted the content of the report. (Reference: Report by Head of Development and Economic Growth dated 21 August 2024, submitted) Page 24
Page 25
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on WEDNESDAY, 21 AUGUST 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor John Armour Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Liz McCabe Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Katie Clanahan, Solicitor Colin McNeill, Applicant Paul Cowin, Objector Morgan Romilly, Objector Hayley Romilly, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Audrey Forrest, Daniel Hampsey, Graham Hardie, Mark Irvine, Paul Kennedy, Dougie Philand and Peter Wallace. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982: APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF TAXI CAR LICENCES The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Mr McNeill joined the meeting by MS Teams. Paul Cowin, Objector, opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. Morgan and Hayley Romilly, Objectors, also opted to proceed by way of audio call and joined the meeting by telephone. There were 3 Taxi Car Licence Applications before the Committee for consideration and the Chair outlined the hearing procedure that would be followed in respect of each Application. (a) Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited, Helensburgh (C McNeill) - Mercedes Vito The Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application APPLICANT Mr McNeill said he was applying for a licence for a wheelchair accessible taxi to Page 25 Agenda Item 3b
Page 26
help supplement the other taxis in the area. He advised that a few nursing homes had contacted him about using his company as they were currently using a company outwith Argyll and Bute. He referred to a letter from a nursing home which he said he had sent to the Licensing Team this morning and had asked that this be passed onto the Committee. He referred to the distinction between a private hire car and a taxi. He said that as private hire cars could operate anywhere in Argyll and Bute they may not be available when required in the Helensburgh and Lomond area. He advised that he thought it best to have a taxi car licence so that drivers could supplement their income with private hires by being able to pick up fares on the street and alleviate pressure when taxis where not available after midnight. He said he hoped to help the nursing homes out and the various other locations that required wheelchair accessible taxis. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mr Romilly commented that he had one of the only wheelchair accessible vehicles in the area. He said he did not get a lot of work from the rank with the majority of customers pre booking for a wheelchair accessible vehicle. He asked Mr McNeill how many customers he expected to get as a taxi instead of a private hire. Mr McNeill explained that if this was private hire vehicle it could go anywhere in Argyll and Bute and if someone phoned up to request it, it may not be available in the Helensburgh and Lomond area, where a taxi would only be able to operate. He said a taxi could not operate outside the zone it was licenced to unless, for example, it was taking someone to hospital and bringing them back. If the vehicle was operated as a private hire it could have a job in Campbeltown or Oban and so would not be available in the Helensburgh and Lomond area. Mr Romilly said he failed to see the difference as a taxi could also be out of the area and if it was busy it would not be available either. Mr McNeill said that with taxis, people could pick up these from the street and with his advanced booking system coming along soon, he would be able to allocate one of the licensed taxis to pick up the person in minutes. A private hire would have to be pre booked and could not do normal street work and could be anywhere within Argyll and Bute. He said that was why he was applying for taxi car licence. He also commented that the number of taxis in the area had dropped since June this year. OBJECTORS Mr Cowin Mr Cowin advised that his objection had been submitted a few months ago. He noted that there had been 52 taxi plates in the area but that had reduced to 47. He felt his objection no longer carried any weight. Mr Romilly Mr Romilly said that he had noted the slight decrease in the number of plates but advised that this did not change his view that Mr McNeill was an unfit operator. He advised of having many dealings with the Council and said that none of his issues Page 26
Page 27
raised had been resolved. He referred to personal attacks and said he felt Mr McNeill was an unfit operator within the town. He referred to Mr McNeill’s response to the objections and said that he felt this was a personal attack on him by Mr McNeill and that it had nothing to do with his plate or his business. He said this demonstrated that Mr McNeill was an unfit character. Mrs Romilly Mrs Romilly advised that she echoed what Mr Romilly had said. She said that from her own experience Mr McNeill was an unfit operator. She said the statement he had submitted was a personal attack. She advised that there were a lot of false complaints from Mr McNeill which they have always had to go back to legal about and that they were always innocent. She said there seemed to be a lot of false allegations and she could not understand why this was the case. She said that they had never submitted any false complaints to the Council about Mr McNeill. She referred to complaints they had put in which she alleged had not been resolved. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr McNeill questioned why it was being said that he was an unfit operator. He referred to the allegations and said he did not know where they were coming from and that they were not from him. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Armour referred to Mr McNeill advising that he had submitted a letter to legal that the Committee should have had sight of. He sought comment from Officers. Mrs Barton advised that a letter was received. Ms Clanahan confirmed she received a copy of the letter shortly before the hearing started and that she was not aware if this had been distributed to the Committee. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Ms Clanahan that it would not be appropriate for the Committee to consider this letter at the last moment as there had been no opportunity to review if before hand and there was no opportunity for the Objectors to consider it. She advised that it was a general letter from a care home and referred to some sort of gap in wheelchair provision in the area. She reiterated that as it was sent in so late that it would not be appropriate to include it today. Councillor Green noted that it was a general statement made about demand which had also been made by Mr McNeill in his representation to the Committee. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Cowin Mr Cowin advised that he had nothing further to add. Mr Romilly Page 27
Page 28
Mr Romilly referred to a previous meeting held in June and said that there were a number of issues that needed to be looked at for the future. He referred to asking for help from the Council’s licensing team. He said that they were only made aware of allegations made after they were submitted. He referred to a letter which had been submitted about an incident he said took place at Tescos, and said this had still to be resolved. He said he did not believe there was any issue with wheelchair accessible taxis at the moment. Mrs Romilly Mrs Romilly acknowledged that there were 47 taxi plates at the moment for the Helensburgh and Lomond area. She referred to a letter she had received from the Council’s Roads Officer that the Council would be looking to re-determine the front taxi rank. She said that if they did this there would be no space for more taxis at the rank. She said she understood that the Council were looking to remove the front taxi rank to make more room for disabled parking spaces. She said that if this rank was taken away it would only leave one in the town of Helensburgh. Mrs Romilly referred to approaching the Council many times for help. She said that they had never made false allegations about Mr McNeill but he had done this to them. She said the Council’s legal team had all the information. She said they had been asking for help for 2 years now. She asked the Committee to consider this. She said she believed Mr McNeill was an unfit operator. Applicant Mr McNeill referred to Mrs Romilly’s comments about the taxi rank. He advised that the Helensburgh and Lomond zone covered around 20 miles and said that he was aware of locations at the top of Loch Lomond where people could not get a general taxi so needed to use private hire vehicles. He said that he was aware that Mr Romilly was granted a taxi licence for that area but advised that he has had phone calls from people not able to get a taxi in that area. He advised that if he got this licence he would be happy to have taxis located across the Helensburgh and Lomond zone. He said he would prioritise any bookings for wheelchair accessible taxis made online or by telephone. He said he would liaise with the nursing homes and other establishments so that they could contact his company if they required a taxi immediately. He said that if this licence was granted he would be able to supply a service on demand. When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Brown asked if there was the capacity within Helensburgh and Lomond at the present time to allow for another licence to be granted. Ms Clanahan confirmed that there were currently 47 taxi licences in the Helensburgh and Lomond area. She said this was one less that September last year and one less than that referenced in the LVSA report. In terms of private hire vehicles, there were 13 with addresses within the Helensburgh and Lomond area. She pointed out that as these were not zoned to a particular area it was difficult to know how many of these operated within Helensburgh and Lomond. She also advised that 4 Page 28
Page 29
of the private hire licences and 4 of the taxi car licences were for wheelchair accessible vehicles. Councillor Green advised that he had difficulty in finding any reason to refuse this licence and on that basis he was minded to approve application. Councillor Armour said he agreed that he found this difficult. He commented that he thought there were a lot of underlying issues between the Applicant and Objectors. He said he had no idea what was correct and what was not. He said the Committee had to take the application at face value and that Councillor Green had summed it up that there was nothing in the application that the Committee could go against. Councillor Green commented that it came down to “he said” “she said”. Councillor McCabe sought and received confirmation from Ms Clanahan that this vehicle was insured. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited for a Mercedes Vito registration number LA11 EOU and noted that Mr McNeill would be notified of this in writing within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) (b) Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited, Helensburgh (C McNeill) - London Taxi TX4 Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application APPLICANT Mr McNeill advised his presentation was the same as that for the previous hearing (at item 3a above) and that he had nothing further to add. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS Mr Cowin asked what would happen if a person needed to go to hospital in Glasgow which was within the Low Emission Zone (LEZ). Mr McNeill advised that there were no hospitals in Glasgow within the LEZ. Mr Romilly commented on the number of vehicles Mr McNeill would have and asked how he would utilise all of these vehicles at the same time. Mr McNeill said that he had drivers waiting on the decisions that would be taken today. He pointed out that if the licences were granted he would not be able to operate until the time had passed for any Appeal to be submitted by the Objectors. He said that would be enough time for the drivers to apply for taxi driver licences to allow them to drive the vehicles. Mr Romilly commented that the Committee could see the factual evidence in front of them but no one had referred to the objections he had submitted. He sought Page 29
Page 30
reassurance that the Committee had seen this evidence. It was explained to Mr Romilly that it was not for him to ask questions of the Committee. Nor was this the appropriate forum for him to air grievances about the Council. He was advised that if he had any complaints regarding the Council, then the complaints procedure was the appropriate avenue to explore this further. The hearing today was limited to issues which could be considered in terms of the licencing regime for the particular licence application to which the hearing relates. OBJECTORS None of the Objectors and anything further to add. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT There were no questions from the Applicant. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS There were no questions from the Committee. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Cowin Mr Cowin advised that he had nothing further to add. Mr Romilly Mr Romilly said he had nothing further to add other than to point out his question had not been answered. Mrs Romilly Mrs Romilly referred to the re-determination of the taxi rank and pointed out that there would be nowhere for taxis to sit if they took one of the ranks away. She said the other one had a major hangover, especially at peak times when the trains were busy. She said she believed Mr McNeill was an unfit operator. Applicant Mr McNeill said that as far as he was concerned he was willing to work with other taxi operators to alleviate anything in the area. He said he could cover it. He said he did this with his private hire vehicles and would continue to do so and work with any operator that wanted to work with him and not against him. All parties were asked to confirm if they had received a fair hearing. Mr McNeill and Mr Cowin confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. Mr Romilly said he had not received a fair hearing. He advised that he was still Page 30
Page 31
waiting for his question to be answered about whether or not the Councillors had seen the evidence that he had submitted. Ms Clanahan advised that she considered that all parties had been given the opportunity of putting their points across and she confirmed that everyone had been sent the full facts and details of issues raised. She advised that it was for all parties to put across their points to the Committee and it had been open to the Objectors and the Applicant to refer to their evidence in support of their arguments and to make their case. It was also open to the Committee Members to ask any questions regarding the documents lodged by the parties, but they were not required to ask questions of the evidence if they felt it to be unnecessary, having reviewed the content of the written evidence. Councillor Green acknowledged that there was no mechanism within the hearing procedure for Members to answer questions. The Committee agreed to note the opinion of Mr Romilly. Mrs Romilly advised that she did not think she had received a fair hearing. She said she felt that she and Mr Romilly had been treated like children and not listened to. DEBATE Councillor McCabe said she tended to agree with the Objectors. She said she felt they should have been able to answer their question. She commented there was a lot in Agenda pack that had not been discussed. Councillor Green pointed out that it was Councillor McCabe’s opportunity to speak now if she wished. Ms Clanahan confirmed that this was an opportunity for Members of the Committee to discuss what had been presented to them including the information in the Agenda pack, despite the fact that the Objectors had failed to raise points about the evidence they had submitted themselves. Councillor McCabe said she was not happy. She said she was minded not to grant the application, having read the contents of the Agenda pack. She commented that a lot of things had been said, which, she advised, she did not think were right. Councillor Armour said that some of the allegations made were unsavoury. He sought clarification from Officers if the Police were aware of these. Ms Clanahan said she did not have that information so could not comment. Councillor Brown referred to reading through the paperwork. She noted there was a long history between both operators. She said the Committee could only go with what was in front of them and that she had noted that no objection had been submitted by Police Scotland. Councillor Green said that unless Police Scotland had submitted a complaint this was not something the Committee could consider when presented in terms of evidence in the Agenda Pack. He said that he had read all the paperwork but could personally only give it limited weight. Ms Clanahan confirmed that everything was cross checked and Police Scotland Page 31
Page 32
were approached but had no comment. She said it was not possible to know what their knowledge was about any alleged activities. Police Scotland reported no concerns in relation to this application or in relation to the Applicant. She reminded the Committee that the test was the balance of probability and the evidence before them was there for them to review and make up their own minds in relation to both content and the reliability of that evidence. Councillor Armour advised that if Police Scotland have not objected then it made it difficult for the Committee to object to something the Police have already looked at. He agreed that the Committee had to deal with the facts in front of them. He acknowledged that there were a lot of unsavoury comments but felt that as they were not acted on by the Police or in any legal way, he could not attribute any great weight to them and so he could see no reason to object to the granting of this licence. Councillor Green advised that based on what was in front of him he could see no reason to oppose this application. He pointed out that did not mean he condoned any behaviours that may have taken place, but he advised he was not commenting on it as he did not know if anything had been taken further so therefore he was giving it limited weight. He said he was not disregarding the comments, he was only giving them limited weight. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited for a London Taxi TX4 registration number LM60 0TV and noted that Mr McNeill would be notified of this in writing within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) (c) Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited, Helensburgh (C McNeill) - London Taxi TX4 The Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of his application APPLICANT Mr McNeill advised his presentation was the same as that for the first hearing (at item 3a above) and that he had nothing further to add. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTORS There were no questions from the Objectors. OBJECTORS Mr Cowin Mr Cowin said it was worth pointing out the comments made in Mr Romilly’s objection contained within the Agenda pack about Mr McNeill’s vehicles having bald tyres. He also referred to an approach by Mr McNeill to Companies House. Page 32
Page 33
Mr Romilly Mr Romilly referred to complaints he had made to the licensing team not being dealt with. He advised that not everything they had complained about would have been a Police Scotland matter. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr McNeill referred to a company being bought out by another company in Dumbarton but this had been removed by the Committee as a proper partnership had not been formed. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Howard asked if there was still the demand for a third taxi car licence, noting the other 2 that had just been granted. Councillor Green commented that the Committee had previously taken the view that the LVSA report produced some time ago was outdated and that a replacement report was requested. Ms Clanahan confirmed that the number of taxi car licences was now 49, taking account of the 2 granted today. She said this was an increase of 1 since September last year and an increase of 1 since the LVSA report was produced. She advised that it was at the Committee’s discretion to decide whether or not there was an over provision. Councillor Brown commented that a lot of the issues the objectors have flagged up were from people that had come to them. She noted that Mr and Mrs Romilly had raised these issues with the Council and asked if they were aware if the people concerned had flagged up their own issues to the Council. Mr Romilly said that any complaints that have come to them they had reverted the complainants back to the licensing team. He referred to the complaint in relation to an incident outside Tescos, and said this had still to be resolved. He said he was aware of complainants that had gone direct to the Council. Councillor McCabe asked if the person involved in the incident at Tesco had contacted the licensing team. She also asked why no one had responded to the complaints. Ms Clanahan advised that she could not comment on any complaint from a third party due to GDPR. She advised that it was her understanding that Mrs Romilly’s was the subject of an internal investigation and that there was an outcome. She confirmed that all relevant complaints received by the Council are looked into. Councillor Kain commented that a lot of this was “he said” “she said” and personal between the Applicant and the Objectors. He said the important issue was if the vehicles were safe. Councillor Blair referred to comments made about bald tyres and asked Mr McNeill if he had a vehicle maintenance schedule. Mr McNeill advised that at that time they used a local garage. He confirmed that they were now using a compliant garage that did a lot of work with Renfrewshire Council. He said that his vehicles were sent over there every 4 weeks to ensure everything was above board. He confirmed that they had a regular recorded regime for each vehicle. Page 33
Page 34
Councillor Blair referred to the comments made about how businesses were being ran and asked Mr Romilly if he would agree that no one should be concerned about what was said as long as a person was working within the law and the rules of the licence. Mr Romilly advised that some of the comments made had been derogatory. He questioned the fitness of Mr McNeill as an operator based on the derogatory comments he advised that Mr McNeill has said. Councillor Blair suggested that if this happened to him then he would sue for defamation of character and then he would have the evidence of this in the form of a solicitor’s letter and queried why no legal advice was ever sought if the alleged incidents had indeed occurred. Councillor Blair asked Ms Clanahan if routine spot checks were carried out on vehicles by the Council. Ms Clanahan advised that she did not know the particulars of how any spot checks were conducted, further advising that there had been some changes in enforcement officers, with a new person starting next week and this could change current processes anyway. Ms Clanahan advised that she understood that there were regular scheduled checks carried out on vehicles by local authority mechanics. Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation from Mr McNeill that he had not made any comments to a Tesco employee. Councillor Liz McCabe left the meeting during the Members’ Questions. SUMMING UP Objectors Mr Cowin advised that he had nothing further to add. Mr Romilly advised that he had nothing further to add. Mrs Romilly said she would like to emphasise that she did not like being treated as a child. She said that it was not a case of “he said” “she said” and that they had provided all the evidence ahead of this meeting. She said there had been a lot of false allegations. She said she was not here to lie and that she had nothing personal against Mr McNeill. She referred to the re-determination of the front taxi rank and advised that if more taxi car licences were granted there would be nowhere for the vehicles to sit. She said that she believed that Mr McNeill was an unfit operator. She referred to his submission in response to their objections and said that his submission was a personal attack against Mr Romilly and his business. She said they were not here to personally attack Mr McNeill. Applicant Mr McNeill said there had been no personal attack. He said he used to work with Mr Romilly before he married Mrs Romilly. He said he had no objection to working with any other operator and that he would be happy to work with other operators to Page 34
Page 35
alleviate demand. When asked, all parties confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. DEBATE Councillor Armour sought and received confirmation that the Committee were dealing with an application for a London Taxi TX4 registration number LO58 JXG. Councillor Blair said he would be keen not to approve a third licence for the Helensburgh and Lomond area at this time. Councillor Green agreed that maybe 2 was enough. Councillor Armour was also in agreement that a third licence should not be issued at this time. He referred to feeling uncomfortable with all the comments that had been made and said he did not know who was telling the truth and who was not. He said there was no proof to go one way or another. He said he appreciated the objectors’ feelings but the Committee had to go with the information in front of them. He said there was nothing the Committee could object to, on the basis of the information before them today, other than over provision. He advised that the fact that the Committee had already granted 2 licences today led him to feel that this one should not be granted. He said he was minded not to grant the licence on the basis for over provision. Councillor Howard said clarification was required on the complaints procedure and what checks were done by Officers. She referred to a question over the future of the sea front taxi rank and said she did not think the Committee should grant this application today. Councillor Armour said he was quite certain Officers will have done what needed to be done in terms of investigating a complaint. He said he had no issue with what Officers would have done. Councillor Green moved refusal of the application on the basis that it was the opinion of the Committee that there was no significant unmet demand locally to support the granting of another licence. DECISION The Committee agreed not to grant a Taxi Car Licence to Glasgow Coach Drivers Limited for a London Taxi TX4 registration number LO58 JXG on the basis that it was the opinion of the Committee that there was no significant unmet demand for taxis in the Helensburgh and Lomond area. It was noted that Mr McNeill would be notified of this in writing within 7 days. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 35
Page 36
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 37
MINUTES of MEETING of PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE held BY MICROSOFT TEAMS on THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 2024 Present: Councillor Kieron Green (Chair) Councillor Gordon Blair Councillor Jan Brown Councillor Audrey Forrest Councillor Amanda Hampsey Councillor Graham Hardie Councillor Fiona Howard Councillor Mark Irvine Councillor Andrew Kain Councillor Peter Wallace Attending: Shona Barton, Governance Manager Alison MacLeod, Licensing Standards Officer David Walker, Solicitor Lynn Holland, Applicant Richard Holland, Applicant’s husband Chris Needham, Applicant’s son-in-law Marion MacNeill, Objector John MacKinnon, Objector 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors John Armour, Daniel Hampsey, Paul Kennedy and Dougie Philand. 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982, THE CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 (LICENSING OF SHORT-TERM LETS) ORDER 2022: APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF A SHORT-TERM LET LICENCE (L. HOLLAND, DEVANA CROFT, TARBERT) The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. In line with recent legislation for Civic Government Hearings, the parties (and any representatives) were given the options for participating in the meeting today. The options available were by video call, by audio call or by written submission. For this hearing the Applicant opted to proceed by way of video call and Lynn Holland joined the meeting by MS Teams along with her husband, Richard Holland, and son-in-law Chris Needham, who was joint owner of the premises. Marion MacNeil and John MacKinnon, Objectors, also opted to proceed by video call and joined the meeting by MS Teams. Abbie MacIver, Objector, opted to proceed by way of written submission. A copy of this was contained within the agenda pack issued on 22 August 2024 and was considered by Members as part of their deliberations. Alan and Rita MacDonald, Objectors, opted to proceed by way of written submission. A copy of this was contained within supplementary agenda pack 1 issued on 23 August 2024 and was considered by Members as part of their deliberations. Page 37 Agenda Item 3c
Page 38
The Chair invited the Licensing Standards Officer to speak to the terms of the report. Thereafter the procedure set out in Appendix 11 of the report was followed and the Chair invited the Applicant to speak in support of their application. APPLICANT Mr Holland spoke on behalf of his wife. He said that the property was a family investment and not purely commercial. He said the family came to Tarbert in 2015 and collectively fell in love with the area. They made a decision to invest in the area and bought Devana Croft in 2015, which had previously been a holiday home for 20 years. He advised that they advertised with cottages.com and primarily the let was for 7 days. He said it was not an Airbnb. It was used by multi-generational families, mature guests, and family and friends. Many of the guests were walkers and enjoyed outdoor activities. He advised that many had family with historical links to the area and many were returning guests. He said that when the property was not occupied by guests it was used by family and friends. He advised that they had set clear ground rules and conditions with cottages.com in terms of who they would accept bookings from. They have resisted adding additional features that would extend the season and potentially impact neighbours. He said that they had received great feedback from guests and advised that they have won the Customer Choice Award for 5 consecutive years. He said that they focussed on good customer service, guest safety and the local community. He said that they consistently received 5 star reviews with many being very positive about the quality of the accommodation, the location, and nearby tourist activities. He pointed out that his wife had always worked in customer care and hospitality sectors. He referred to the recent sale of the Frigate Hotel in Tarbert and advised that his wife was asked to run this and train the management team which was now complete with the hotel now open again. He advised that Devana Croft was a unique property as it was the only one in the area able to accommodate 8 or 9 guests. He said that he acknowledged the points made by his neighbours in their objections. He expressed surprise that these objections had gone back years. He said he was aware of the objections despite not being provided with detailed information. He said he did not recognise nor have any evidence of the issues raised. With reference to bin collections, he advised that when they were made aware of the issue with commercial collections they arranged for their bins to be emptied by the same vehicle that emptied the bins of the neighbouring properties. He acknowledged that the ownership and upkeep of the private road was shared by all the residents and he confirmed he had recently paid his contribution to repair the road. He referred to dog fouling and advised that they allowed guests to bring a maximum of 2 well behaved dogs. He advised that there had been no issues he was aware of other than the one raised by Mrs MacNeill which the Licensing Standards Officer had referred to in her presentation as happening last weekend. He said that there had been no other reports of incidents over the last 6 years. He advised that as a result of the recent incident, they have reviewed access and were currently investigating a solution. He said that dogs were a common occurrence on the road. He referred to neighbours’ dogs and Page 38
Page 39
also dog walkers using the road to gain access to walks and footpaths. He advised that of the 29 bookings taken this year, 20 of these have brought dogs. He also referred to an issue raised by his neighbour, Mr MacDonald, about contractors parking on his grass. He said that he had visited that same day and agreed to put up no parking signs. He advised that he also spoke to the contractor in question to ensure this did not happen again. He also advised that he contacted cottages.com to update a list of contractors they would not accept bookings from. He advised that they always received positive comments in their visitors’ book. He said this was not an Airbnb and that the minimum stay was 7 nights between April – October. He pointed out that they did not have a constant turnover of guests. He advised that tourism was the mainstay of Tarbert’s economy, with many businesses relying on tourism. He said they would not survive without visitors coming to stay. He advised that the Scottish Tourist Board have calculated that the average spend per day, per visitor, was £42. He said that he estimated that their guests helped to generate £300,000 towards the local economy and if Devana Croft was not available to book this income would be lost to the local community. He advised that he thought they had a good relationship with their neighbours and said they were committed to working with their neighbours and if the licence was approved, they would continue to put reasonable lines of communication in place and work with their neighbours. He advised that when he retired they wanted to concentrate on Davena Croft. He said that the holiday let was their livelihood and family home. He advised that he and his wife had been part of village life since 2015 and have had a home there since 2019. He said they played an active part in the community through volunteering. He advised that he had recently taken on the role of Treasurer with the local bowling club and that they were actively seeking to bring a tennis centre to the village. He said that they were not faceless owners and communicated frequently with guests before, during and after their visits. He advised that they offered high quality, safe accommodation that, he said, benefited the local community. He said that he thought they had an open relationship with neighbours and that they were surprised by the objections. He said that he hoped that any future concerns would be raised with them so that solutions could be found. He said this holiday let was an investment for his children. QUESTIONS FROM OBJECTOR Marion MacNeill Mrs MacNeill asked if the short-term let application was for rental of the property between April and October. Mr Holland advised that the licence applied for was for 52 weeks. He said that the property was usually occupied for 20 – 30 weeks per year. He said that they had 29 bookings this year, which would be well within the parameters. Page 39
Page 40
OBJECTORS Marion MacNeill Mrs MacNeill said that she lived directly opposite the property and that her privacy had gone. She referred to the steep road leading down to the drive and explained that people reversed down it. She said their daytime running lights would shine right into her living room. She advised that sometimes people would sit for up to 10 minutes in their cars and look into her home. She said she did not experience this problem before the property was a holiday let. She referred to a recent incident involving visiting divers. She said that she could hear horns blasting from her house. She said she had photographic evidence of parking that week which involved 2 cars and 4 vans. She said that she had a private driveway and people had to use it to get past. She referred to Police Scotland being consulted and advising that they had no record of any incidents relating to the premises over the last 3 years. She advised that she had photographic evidence of Mr and Mrs Holland breaking Covid rules. She said the family came from down south and used Devana Croft in April 2021. She said that this was more than 3 years ago. She said that the family had broken the Covid rules on a few occasions and that they had been using the Croft when people were not meant to. She referred to Mr Holland advising a recent Residents Association meeting that the property would be rented out for 28 weeks. She said that it has already been rented out for 16 weeks and that Mrs Holland had posted on Facebook that if anyone wanted to make use of the place to come now as they were fully booked until November. She said this would take bookings to more than 28 weeks. She referred to waste collection and advised that the property’s bins were not emptied last week. She referred to Mr Holland advising that he had taken up the post of Treasurer of the bowling club and was looking to bring a tennis centre to the village. She advised that this project has been in the pipeline for many years and not something set up by Mr Holland. She referred to Mr and Mrs Holland advising that this was a retirement investment. She commented on Mrs Holland working at The Frigate and said she believed she had a part time job in the village. She said this was not retirement if she was still working part time in the village. She said her own privacy was being impacted by the people using that house. She referred to visitors coming to the house with a van and boat trailer and reversing down the drive with their lights shining into her property. She said you could not turn daylight running lights off on a car. John MacKinnon Mr MacKinnon advised that, contrary to the solicitor’s letter regarding the title deeds, a building should not be used for any purpose that might contribute to nuisance to the neighbourhood. He said that it was obvious that the owners of this property were contributing to nuisance to the neighbourhood and so were going against the terms of the property’s deeds. Page 40
Page 41
He referred to it being recommended in the Committee report that the application be granted and said this was a commercial business taking precedence over the objections from 7 objectors. He said the objections were being set aside in the interests of this commercial project. He referred to it being stated that some of the complaints were not valid and not relevant to the application as they had not been reported to the relevant authorities, for example, Police Scotland and Environmental Health. He said that if they were to phone up Police Scotland to complain about dog fouling or headlights shining into their homes their complaints would be dismissed out of hand. He said that whether these events were notified or not, they were still doing damage to the quality of life the neighbours had. He referred to responses given by the Applicant in respect of some of his objections. He said that his objections had not been resolved. He said that if this licence was granted, the resale value of their homes would go down. He advised that he had submitted a Freedom of Information request to find out how many letting applications which had objections, had been granted. He said that to date none of the objections had been upheld and the applications had always been granted. He said this led him to believe the licensing process was a farce. He asked the Committee to prove him wrong. He referred to Mr Holland claiming he had good relationships with the neighbours. He said that they did not have a good relationship with him. He referred to a dispute involving a fence he had put up for privacy. He said that Mr Holland had complained about it and had threatened him with legal action. The Chair thanked Mr MacKinnon for his representation and confirmed that there would be no opportunity within the procedure for him to ask questions of the Committee directly. QUESTIONS FROM APPLICANT Mr Holland referred to there being a lot of general comments. He asked Mr MacKinnon to confirm that the reason they had sent a letter regarding legal action about the fence was because Mr MacKinnon had placed the fence partly on their land and beyond his boundary. Mr MacKinnon confirmed that the fence was over the boundary by 25 mm. He explained this was because they had placed the front facing side towards Mr Holland’s house. Mr Holland commented that he could provide Mrs MacNeill with information from Argyll and Bute Council about the waste collection. He said that every bin collection had happened since they changed the collection to be the same vehicle as the rest of the residents. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS Councillor Irvine asked the Applicant to clarify their management process in terms of who lived nearby to do the changeovers and laundry etc. Mrs Holland advised that she mostly did it. She said that her husband was fully retired. She advised that the changeover happened on each Saturday and that she did the laundry. She said that they maintained contact with all their guests during their stay. She said they were not present at the property when they arrived but they did phone them once they arrived to check everything Page 41
Page 42
was okay. She said that they communicated with the guests from the moment of booking through to them arriving, during their stay, and then leaving. She said they did not randomly turn up to the property while the guests were there as she thought that would be an invasion of their privacy. She said that they lived in the village and had moved there permanently 2 years ago. She said they were on hand and readily available to their guests at any time. Councillor Irvine sought and received confirmation from Mrs Holland that if there were any incidents or issues, they were only a few minutes away. Councillor Brown asked the Applicant if it would be possible for them to put up no dog fouling notices so residents were more aware and focussed on the dog issue. Mrs Holland said that they would be open to any ideas or suggestions. She said that this was referred to in the visitors’ handbook and that there was also a notice up on the inside of the door leading out of the property. She said she would be open to putting up more notices. Councillor Brown referred to the handbook asking visitors to be mindful of people at night and not to have loud music. She asked Mrs Holland if they had a cut off time limit put on that. Mrs Holland said there was not a specific time. She said that the majority of guests were multi-generational from grandmas down to grandchildren. She said she would be happy to put a time limit on playing loud music. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from Mrs Holland that she would accept a time limit of 9 or 10 pm. Councillor Green sought and received confirmation from the Council’s Solicitor that it would be appropriate to put a condition on the use of the areas outside. Councillor Green referred to Mrs MacNeill’s complaint about vehicles coming and going and asked if she would accept that this could occur regardless of whether the property was occupied permanently or as a short-term let. He referred to people going down into the village to socialise at night. Mrs MacNeill said it was not just a problem at nighttime and that people were coming and going all the time. She referred to LED lights being brighter and people regularly coming down the road. She referred to foreign visitors putting stones behind their wheels while parked on the slope. Councillor Green asked Mrs MacNeill if she would accept that this issue was caused by the design of the estate and the conditions of the road rather than who was occupying the property. He said that a permanent resident may also come and go for whatever reason. Mrs MacNeill said that permanent residents like herself did not use their car all the time. She said that her car was not used for 2 or 3 days at a time. She said guests would come and go out and about all the time. She said it never seemed to be a problem with local residents. Councillor Blair asked the Objectors what type of engagement they’d had with guests. Mrs MacNeill said she stayed opposite the property and had the most dealings with those coming and going. She said she could be sitting outside in the summer and most would be friendly and come over and speak and others were not. She said that on one occasion she was asked by a guest how long she was staying for. When she advised that she lived there they were surprised. Page 42
Page 43
Councillor Blair asked the Applicant if they had received any complaints from guests in respect of any engagement with neighbours. Mrs Holland said there had been no complaints. She advised of one neighbour lending guests a hosepipe for their children. Any comments received from guests were always that the neighbours were nice to them. Councillor Kain sought and received confirmation from Mr Holland that the property was at the end of a cul-de-sac, with 2 complainants at the far end of it, Mrs MacNeill facing the property and Mr MacKinnon and Mr MacDonald either side of it. He said that some neighbours were 20 to 30 metres away and others were 120 to 130 metres away from the property. Councillor Green sought and received clarification from Mrs MacNeill that she had never contacted the Applicant about any issues. Mr MacKinnon advised that the only issue he had was in relation to the fence and he said that they had been very legalised and evasive in their dealings with him. SUMMING UP Objectors Mrs MacNeill Mrs MacNeill referred to Covid rules being broken. She referred to Mrs Holland advising there were only 7 day lets and she pointed out that people came just for the weekend or from Monday to Friday. She said it was not always for 7 days and that she had witnessed that. She questioned how many people in the meeting today had difficulty with neighbours changing every week of their life. She referred to not knowing who her neighbours would be each week. Councillor Green acknowledged Mrs MacNeill’s question which, he advised, may be responded to during the Members’ debate but could not be responded to at this point. Mr MacKinnon Mr MacKinnon advised that he thought he had covered everything. He said that he could put further points in writing and send them to the Committee if he was not too late. Councillor Green advised that there was no opportunity for Mr MacKinnon to put any further points in writing as the decision would be taken today. Mr MacKinnon advised that Mr Holland had painted a picture of neighbours being welcoming, with cosy relationships and he said this was not the case. He said that all the Objectors found the family difficult to deal with. He said he could not see why they had to be subjected to this nuisance and why the Applicant’s interests were being put before the Objectors. Page 43
Page 44
Applicant Mr Holland Mr Holland said there had been quite a number of sweeping statements. He referred to the Covid issue and confirmed that this happened on one occasion when the Scottish hospitality, including second home owners, were given permission by the Scottish Government to visit their properties to ensure everything was adequate for renting, given the time they had lain empty. He said that it was their son-in-law, Chris Needham who was joint owner of the property, that had visited and that the Police had arrived on one occasion. He said it was confirmed that no rules were broken. He said that they were upset that Mrs MacNeill continued to bring this up. He said it was one visit and it had been clarified on that occasion at the time. He referred to Mrs MacNeill advising of 3 vehicles being outside the property. He advised that they encouraged visitors to use the double garage and that many did. He acknowledged that when cars went down the drive their headlights would shine back up the hill. He said they have asked guests to be mindful of neighbours and pointed out that if they drove on the right hand side of the road the lights would not shine on the neighbouring property but if they drove on the left hand side, they would. He said that they were open to suggestions and thought that they had been proactive over the 6 years to any issues. He noted that it had been confirmed by the Objectors that they had not communicated any specific issues to them. He said they were disappointed that the Objectors had not found the time to raise any concerns over the years as they would have been dealt with. Chris Needham Mr Needham said he was disappointed to hear the remarks made about relationships with the neighbours. He advised that they had visited 3 or 4 weeks ago and had a very friendly chat with Mrs MacNeill and that they had been invited for drinks with Mr MacKinnon and Ms Moss on regular occasions. He said he would like to draw to the Committee’s attention that it was their view that they had a reasonable relationship with the neighbours and that if their perception was different then they would accept that. He referred to the submission from Mr MacDonald regarding the technical issue of the road. He advised that as part of this submission he had stated that he did not claim to have experienced any disturbance from guests. He referred to complaints by Mrs MacNeill about car lights shining into her property. He said that Mrs MacNeill and her husband had several vehicles and there have been occasions when their car lights have shone into their kitchen. He said they have never had an issue with that. He said that he accepted this as part and parcel of being located in a cul-de-sac where there was continuous and one way driving in operation. The Chair sought confirmation from all parties that they had received a fair hearing. Mrs MacNeill advised that she had not received a fair hearing and this was noted. Mr MacKinnon, Mr and Mrs Holland, and Mr Needham confirmed that they had received a fair hearing. Page 44
Page 45
DEBATE Councillor Irvine referred to all the objections. He said he personally found it was not applicable in respect of the number of weeks the property was let. He did not think the issue around Covid was relevant. He advised that there appeared to be a lot of neighbour related tension as opposed to specific issues regarding the letting of the property. He said he was reassured that the owners lived nearby. He referred to the recommended conditions to address the concerns from the objectors around anti-social behaviour, privacy, littering and waste, and management of dogs. He said that there were a number of objections that needed to be disregarded, as they were not relevant for the Committee. Councillor Kain said he disagreed with Councillor Irvine. He advised that while not directly relevant in procedural issues; the issues were relevant from a community perspective. He referred to the title deeds and suggested any new title deeds being drawn up now would now refer to this type of use being objected to. He referred to 6 neighbours objecting and noted that they all lived within the cul-de-sac. He said the Committee needed to take into account the relationships with the neighbours. He said he was not sure if the Committee could apply anything to this in that respect. He said he did not think the Committee were in a good place with these applications. Councillor Green commented on the questions raised by the Objectors. He referred to none of the applications being refused that have come before the Committee to date. He pointed out that each application was considered in detail and debated on and in some cases additional conditions were applied to licences. He referred to discussion had today about including a condition in respect of the use of outside areas. Councillor Green also referred to the question asked about the Committee having experience of living with neighbours that frequently changed. He advised that he lived in a flat in Oban, which had an Airbnb in the same close so he did have the experience of changeovers right next to him. He advised that as a Committee they understood the impact of short-term lets on neighbours, which were both positive and negative. Councillor Brown referred to this being a single lane from a main road into a cul-de-sac. She commented on the fact that the Applicant has been running this let for 6 years and understood that during those 6 years anything that has come up in respect of issues with neighbours has been dealt with. She said it was striking that the Applicant was shocked about the amount of ill feeling and complaints that have come up since applying for the licence. She said she found it disconcerting that people did not feel they could approach their neighbours. She noted that the Applicant had been running the business for 6 years and as far as they were concerned, everything was fine. She said it was important to take account of everyone’s point of view. She advised that she thought the Objectors should have been raising these issues long before now so things could be done and attended to. Councillor Blair said that he felt as a Committee they gave due diligence to each application they determined. He said they took their regulatory role seriously. He advised that he lived at the end of a Terrace in Dunoon and had an Airbnb next door to him for a time. He said that visitors from Japan, China and Aberdeen came to stay with no issues. He acknowledged that he might have been lucky. He said he understood the concerns and angst of the neighbours. He said it was reassuring to hear that guests and visitors had good relations with the neighbours. He said it was important for bridges to be built between the neighbours and the Applicant. Page 45
Page 46
Councillor Green sought comment from Members on how they felt about adding a condition with a time limit on use of the outdoor space. He suggested 9 or 10 pm. Councillor Brown advised that she stayed in a small village and that the house across the road was a short-term let with no issues. She said there was also another short-term let in the village that people did have issues with. She said she would agree with the Chair about putting a time limit on use of the outdoor space. She suggested 9.30 or 10 pm at the very latest. Councillor Forrest agreed that a 10 pm limit would be reasonable. Having heard everyone, she confirmed that she weighed these things up carefully. She advised that she thought the Applicant had made every attempt to try to resolve problems. She commented that they had shown due diligence in getting the changes made to the uplift of the bins. Councillor Green suggested 10 pm would be a good time. He referred to this part of the world being fortunate to experience late sunsets during the summer months. Councillor Blair said he would be happy to go with the recommendations in the report with the additional condition. Further discussion took place on the wording of an additional condition putting a time limit on the use of the outdoor space. It was agreed there was a need to be more specific in terms of what the outdoor space could be used for up to a certain time. It was agreed to put a time limit on the playing of music. Having sought advice from Officers the Chair moved that the short-term licence be granted subject to the additional conditions set out in report in respect of privacy and security; littering and waste disposal; and anti-social behaviour, with condition 3 under anti-social behaviour amended to read “the licence holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that guests do not play amplified music within the garden or external areas between the hours of 9 pm and 7 am”. No one was otherwise minded. DECISION The Committee agreed to grant a short-term let licence to Mrs Holland subject to the additional conditions set out in the report in respect of privacy and security; littering and waste disposal; and anti-social behaviour, with condition 3 under anti-social behaviour amended to read - “The licence holder must take reasonable steps to ensure that guests do not play amplified music within the garden or external areas between the hours of 9 pm and 7 am”. (Reference: Report by Head of Legal and Regulatory Support, submitted) Page 46
Page 47
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 22/01986/PPP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Beaton And McMurchy Architects Ltd Proposal: Site for the erection of dwellinghouse Site Address: Land North of Lynburn, Rowan Road, Oban _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 2 (A) INTRODUCTION This application was presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 21 February 2024 where the application was approved subject to conditions and the conclusion of a Section 75 Agreement. The purpose of this current Supplementary Report is to advise Members of a change in circumstances regarding legal control over the relevant section of land that negates the requirement for a Section 75 Agreement, as addressed in Section B below. (B) REQUIREMENT FOR A SECTION 75 AGREEMENT This application was presented to the Committee in February 2024 and was approved subject to conditions and the conclusion of Section 75 Agreement to secure an area of land from a third party within the private road corridor at the junction with the public road. The Section 75 Agreement was required to ensure that the required upgrades to the private access road at its junction with the public road could be achieved within land under the control of the developer. During the preparation of the Section 75 Agreement and prior to its conclusion and issue of a formal determination, it has subsequently been demonstrated that the developer has now gained legal control over the relevant section of land within the private road corridor at the junction with the public road. The Section 75 Agreement is therefore no longer required and this matter can now be satisfactorily addressed by planning condition. Condition 4 relative to the application relates to vehicular access, parking and turning and states that, pursuant to Condition 1, no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the means of vehicular access and parking/turning arrangements to serve the development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority, to include the necessary upgrade to the existing private road at the junction with the public road and the associated commensurate improvements to the existing private access. Condition 4 further states that prior to work starting on site, the approved scheme of works shall be completed, and the visibility splays shall be cleared Page 47 Agenda Item 4
Page 48
Classification: OFFICIAL of all obstructions. In the absence of a S75 Agreement, it is proposed to amend the terms of Condition 4 to include a requirement for the written approval of the completed scheme of works by the Planning Authority prior to work staring on the construction of the dwellinghouse. The full list of conditions, to include the amendment to Condition 4, is appended to this report. _________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report which does not introduce any new information that has not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling. The recommendation of the Planning Authority remains that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions and reasons appended to Supplementary Report No. 2. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 04.09.2024 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 04.09.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 48
Page 49
Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX A – CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NO. 22/01986/PPP, TO INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 4, VEHICULAR ACCESS, PARKING AND TURNING. CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 22/01986/PPP Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. PPP – Matters Requiring AMSC Submission Plans and particulars of the matters specified in Conditions 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 below shall be submitted by way of application(s) for Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions in accordance with the timescales and other limitations in Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended. Thereafter the development shall be completed wholly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In accordance with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). 2. PPP - Approved Details The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 30.09.2022 supporting information and, the approved drawings listed in the table below. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Site Plan & Section 2034 02 B 13.10.2022 Site & Location Plans 2034 03 B 13.10.2022 Cross Sections 2034 04 01.12.2022 Site & Location Plans Road Improvements Proposals 2034 07 A 06.02.2024 Junction Site Plan as Proposed 2034 11 06.02.2024 Reason: To accord with Regulation 28 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013. 3. Timescale to be Agreed for Completion Pursuant to condition 1 - 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 49
Page 50
Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 4. Vehicular Access, Parking and Turning Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the means of vehicular access and parking/turning arrangements to serve the development have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. Such details shall incorporate: i) The upgrade of the existing access at the connection with the public road in accordance with the Council’s Roads Standard Detail Drawing SD08/002a with visibility splays measuring 2.4 metres to point X by 25 metres to point Y; ii) The provision of a parking and turning area in accordance with the requirements of Policy LDP 11 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP TRAN 6 of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015; iii) The provision of a footway to be provided over the total length of the private road; iv) A road carriageway with a minimum width of 3 metres; v) The provision of passing places in accordance with Operational Services Drawing 08/003a at locations approximately 50m, 90m and 180m from the junction with the public road; vi) The provision of a turning head in accordance with Figure 18 of The Roads Development Guide to be provided at the location where the private road separates to serve the dwellings leading to ‘Toriskay’ and the dwellings leading to ‘High Acres’ / ‘Rowan Hill’, with a bin storage area to the rear of the turning head; vii) The provision of street lighting ducting to be installed from the junction with the public road to the location where the private road separates to serve the dwellings leading to ‘Toriskay’ and the dwellings leading to ‘High Acres’ / ‘Rowan Hill’; Prior to any work starting on site, the visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions such that nothing shall disrupt visibility from a point 0.6m above the road carriageway at point Y and the visibility splays shall be maintained clear of all obstructions thereafter. The approved scheme of road improvement works shall be fully implemented prior to any works commencing in relation to the construction of the dwelling. The developer shall provide written notification to the planning authority upon completion of the approved road improvement works and shall not proceed with any further development within the application site boundary until such time as written confirmation has been received from the planning authority, in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers, that the completed road improvements are satisfactory. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Note to applicant: Page 50
Page 51
Classification: OFFICIAL • 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. 5. PPP – Availability of Connection to Public Water Supply Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence on site until authorisation has been given by Scottish Water for connection to the public water supply. Confirmation of authorisation to connect shall be provided in writing to the Planning Authority before commencement of development. Reason: To ensure that the development is adequately served by a public water supply. Note to Applicant: • In the event that a public water supply connection cannot be obtained an alternative private water supply would constitute a material amendment requiring the submission of a further planning application. 6. Sustainable Drainage System Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 2, 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. 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 . 7. Design and Finishes Pursuant to Condition 1 – no development shall commence until plans and particulars of the site layout, design and external finishes of the dwellinghouse has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority. These details shall incorporate: i) A statement addressing the Action Checklist for developing design contained within the Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guide 2006; Page 51
Page 52
Classification: OFFICIAL ii) A statement addressing how the proposed development has been designed to be consistent with the six qualities of successful places, as defined within Policy 14 of NPF4; iii) Local vernacular design; iv) Maximum of one and three quarter storey in design; v) Rectangular footprint with traditional gable ends; vi) Symmetrically pitched roof angled between 35 and 42 degrees finished in natural slate or good quality artificial slate; vii) External walls finished in white wet dash roughcast, white smooth render, natural stone, timber cladding or a mixture of these finishes; viii) Details of finished ground floor levels relative to an identifiable fixed datum located outwith the application site, along with details of the existing and proposed site levels shown in the form of section drawings, contour plans, site level surveys, or a combination of these; ix) Windows with a vertical emphasis; and x) Details of an area within the application site for the placement of refuse/recycling bins. Reason: To accord with Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended, and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse with its surroundings. 8. Landscaping and Biodiversity Enhancement Pursuant to Condition 1 - no development shall commence until a scheme of 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 Page 52
Page 53
Classification: OFFICIAL 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. 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. 9. Pre-commencement Survey Pursuant to Condition 1 - 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. Page 53
Page 54
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 55
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2005 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No. XYZ123ABC Location Plan Relative to Planning Application:22/01986/PPP O 1:1,250 Page 55
Page 56
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 57
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 23/00185/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Torloisk Estate Proposal: Conversion and extension of stone barn to form dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Land West of Lagganulva Farm, Ulva Ferry, Isle of Mull _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 4 (A) INTRODUCTION This application was presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 22 May 2024, where the Committee agreed to continue consideration of the application to the meeting of the PPSL Committee on 19 June 2024. Supplementary Reports were presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 19 June 2024 and 21 August 2024. The purpose of this current Supplementary Report is to update Members on the status of the further information requested in relation to Policy 83 of Local Development Plan 2, as addressed in Section B below. (B) REQUESTED INFORMATION Further information has been requested from both the applicant and the tenant farmer in relation to the impact of the proposed development with regards to the provisions of LDP2 Policy 83 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft Land. Additional time is required to gain the requested information from the relevant parties and to subsequently assess the information with regards to the provisions of LDP2 Policy 83. _________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report and continue consideration of this application when the requested information has been received and assessed. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 04.09.2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 04.09.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 57 Agenda Item 5
Page 58
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 59
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 23/00185/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Torloisk Estate Proposal: Conversion and extension of stone barn to form dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Land West of Lagganulva Farm, Ulva Ferry, Isle of Mull _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 3 (A) INTRODUCTION This application was presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 22 May 2024, where the Committee agreed to continue consideration of the application to the meeting of the PPSL Committee on 19 June 2024. A Supplementary Report was presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 19 June 2024. The purpose of this current Supplementary Report is to update Members on the status of the further information requested in relation to Policy 83 of Local Development Plan 2, as addressed in Section B below. (B) REQUESTED INFORMATION Further information has been requested from both the applicant and the tenant farmer in relation to the impact of the proposed development with regards to the provisions of LDP2 Policy 83 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft Land. Additional time is required to gain the requested information from the relevant parties. _________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report and continue consideration of this application to the meeting of the PPSL Committee on 18 September 2024 to allow for the requested information to be prepared. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 12.08.2024 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 12.08.2024 Fergus Murray, Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 59
Page 60
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 61
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle _________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 23/00185/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Torloisk Estate Proposal: Conversion and extension of stone barn to form dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Land West of Lagganulva Farm, Ulva Ferry, Isle of Mull _________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 2 (A) INTRODUCTION This application was presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 22 May 2024, where the Committee agreed to continue consideration of the application to the meeting of the PPSL Committee on 19 June 2024. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to update Members on the status of the further information requested in relation to Policy 83 of Local Development Plan 2, as addressed in Section B below. (B) REQUESTED INFORMATION Further information has been requested from both the applicant and the tenant farmer in relation to the impact of the proposed development with regards to the provisions of LDP2 Policy 83 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft Land. Additional time is required to gain the requested information from the relevant parties. _________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report and continue consideration of this application to the meeting of the PPSL Committee on 21 August 2024 to allow for the requested information to be prepared. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 10.06.2024 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 10.06.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 61
Page 62
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 63
Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference No: 23/00185/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Torloisk Estate Proposal: Conversion and extension of stone barn to form dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Land West Of Lagganulva Farm, Ulva Ferry, Isle of Mull ____________________________________________________________________________ SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT NO. 1 (A) INTRODUCTION This application is to be presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 22 May 2024. The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to bring Member’s attention to late representations received regarding the proposed development which is addressed in Section B below. ______________________________________________________________________ (B) REPRESENTATIONS A late representation has been received from Cllr Willie Hume, local member for Oban South and the Isles (received 21st May 2024) raising the following issues: “I have been contacted by one of my constitutions, all be it very late in the day regarding Planning Application 23/00185/PP. A few points I would like to highlight before tomorrows meeting. 1 The application states that the house will connect to a public water supply, there is no public water supply in that area. 2 The electricity supply is on the opposite side of the road, the application does not state if the supply will be overhead or underground. If it is poles and overhead wires this will impact the surrounding landscape. 3 The proposed development is contrary to polices LDP Strat 1 and LPD 9 of the local development plan, I would strongly recommend a SITE VIST before any decision is made.” Comment: It is noted that the application is to be served by a private water supply, this matter is detailed in the main report of handling. It is noted that the provision of a connection to the electricity network is not a matter that requires express planning permission. The reference to LDP STRAT 1 and LDP 9 is unclear and it is assumed is made with reference to the now superseded Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015. It is noted that there is no obvious conflict in respect of the intentions of LDP STRAT 1 which promotes the concept of sustainable development which is now looked at more extensively under the provisions of LDP2; it is also noted that the provisions of LDP 9 Page 63
Page 64
related to development setting, layout and design – again matters which are all reflected in detail within the updated context of LDP2 and against which officers have set out their assessment of the proposal and a recommendation that the current application is in accordance with these requirements. It is noted that officers have undertaken a site visit in their own assessment of the proposal and will include site photographs in their presentation to PPSL; it would be up to members to determine if a further site appraisal would add value to their own consideration of this matter. A further late issue has been conveyed as a verbal representation (further to her original written representation) from Kirsty Leitch to the Planning Authority, advising that the replacement agricultural building, as detailed within application reference 24/00259/PNAGRI, would not be suitable for the agricultural activities associated with the farm. Comment: The comments regarding the replacement agricultural building are noted. It is proposed to amend Condition 15 – Phasing of Development, relative to the application to allow for increased flexibility for an alternative scheme for the provision of the replacement barn. A late representation has been received, by email only, from Helen Mackay, dated 21.05.2024. The representation is summarised as: The replacement agricultural building is unsuitable, in practical terms, for the required agricultural purposes. The field forming part of the application site for the new house is part of the farm’s in-bye land and is classified as improved grassland. The field is used for holding hoggs on their return from away-wintering and at this time all other in-bye land is used to capacity. If allocating another field for these purposes, flock size would have to be reduced, losing support payments and productivity. This would be contrary to LDP2 Policy 83 where this would result in this loss of agricultural land where it weakens the viability of the agricultural unit. Housing hoggs elsewhere would be costly and an additional building would have visual impacts. Comment: The development proposed by the current application seeks to develop an existing barn and a rough area of adjacent ground. In terms of the land capability for agriculture, the application site falls within Class 5.2 where the land is capable of use as improved grassland, where pasture establishment may be difficult to maintain. NPF 4 Policy 5, sets out ‘Prime Agricultural Land’ as being Class 1, 2 or 3.1 in the land capability classification for agriculture. The proposed development would be of a location that it would not impact upon prime agricultural land, and its limited scale is such that it would not impact significantly upon land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, with due consideration to the extent of the wider agricultural landholding. The full list of conditions, to include the amendment to Condition 15, is appended to this report. ____________________________________________________________________________ (C) RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of this report which does not introduce any new information that has not already been addressed in the original Report of Handling. The recommendation of the Planning Authority remains that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to Supplementary Report No. 1. ______________________________________________________________________ Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 21.05.2024 Page 64
Page 65
Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 21.05.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 65
Page 66
APPENDIX A – CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NO. 23/00185/PP, TO INCLUDE AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 15, PHASING OF DEVELOPMENT. CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/00185/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 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. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 3. Sustainable Drainage System Page 66
Page 67
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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Page 67
Page 68
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 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. Page 68
Page 69
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. 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. Page 69
Page 70
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). 11. 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. 12. 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. Reason: In order to protect natural heritage assets in the interest of nature conservation. 13. 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 Page 70
Page 71
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. 14. 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 Page 71
Page 72
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. 15. 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. Page 72
Page 73
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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: 23/00185/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Development Applicant: Torloisk Estate Proposal: Conversion and extension of stone barn to form dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and formation of vehicular access Site Address: Land West of Lagganulva Farm DECISION ROUTE ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Conversion and extension of barn to form dwellinghouse • Installation of private drainage system • Formation of vehicular access • Connection to private water supply (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: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority Report dated 14.03.2023 advising of no objections to the application subject to conditions relating to the formation of the access at the junction with the public road, the clearance and maintenance of visibility splays, the provision of a system of surface water drainage, and the provision of a parking and turning area. The report further advises that the required sightlines are achievable within the public road corridor. Scottish Water Letter dated 14.03.2023 advising of no objections to the application. Page 73
Page 74
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 NatureScot Letter dated 04.04.2023 advising that the proposed development lies within the Lagganulva Woodland Site of Special Scientific Interest and within the Loch na Keal National Scenic Area. The letter advises that the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant effect on the qualifying interests of these sites either directly or indirectly. The letter further advises that European Protected Species, such as bats and otters, may be present on the site. Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service Report dated 27.03.2023 advising that the application appears to be proposing the redevelopment of land where there is an indication of previous use which may be contaminative. The response recommends the inclusion of a planning condition relating to a site investigation and risk assessment. Local Biodiversity Officer Email dated 19.04.2023 advising of agreement with the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and requesting further surveys to identify the presence of otters, bats and nesting birds, and requesting the provision of a Tree Protection and Management Plan. Upon the submission of an Otter and Bat Survey Report, the Local Biodiversity Officer was re-consulted and, in an email dated 26.06.2023, advised that works should be carried out in accordance with the submitted Report. The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the consultation responses are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: 24/00259/PNAGRI Erection of agricultural shed Prior Approval Not Required and permission therefore granted – Decision Issued 10.04.2024 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 18.04.2023. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: 22 objections have been received to the application. OBJECTIONS Mr Daniel Brooks, Sapling Cottage, Ulva Ferry, Isle of Mull, PA73 6LY (14.04.2023) Mr Rhuri Munro, Ferry House, Ulva, Isle of Mull, PA73 6LZ (17.04.2023) Christine Leach (15.04.2023 and 17.04.2023) Celia Royce, Kellan Old Farm, Aros, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JY – by email only (17.04.2023) Page 74
Page 75
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Kirsty Leitch – by email only (17.04.2023) Miss Hilary Sutton, The Bothy, Tigh-Na-Caora, B8073 North of Ulva Ferry, from Grouse Cottage to C44 Ulva Ferry Road, Ulva Ferry, Isle of Mull, PA73 6LT (18.04.2023) Ms Irene Anderson, Burnedge, Bridge of Eam, Perth, PH2 9BP (18.04.2023) Ms Elizabeth Wood, 9 Lochmill Holding, Milton of Campsie, Glasgow, G66 8AG (18.04.2023) Mr Michael Hogan, 29 Coltpark Woods, Hamsterley Colliery, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE17 7SP (18.04.2023) Mr Kieran Murray, Craighead Cottage, Braco, Dunblane, FK15 9LP (18.04.2023) E Wood – by email only (17.04.2023) Nick Mawhinney (14.04.2023) Sarah Mawhinney – by email only (17.04.2023) Dr Robert Stewart, Killiemore Garden Caravan, Killiechronan, Isle of Mull, PA72 6JZ (18.04.2023) Ms Helen Stace, Scoor Cottage, Ulva Ferry, Isle of Mull, PA73 6LX (four representations dated 18.04.2023) Tim Dixon, Scoor Cottage, Croft 3, Fanmore (18.04.2023) North West Mull Community Woodland Company Ltd, Penmore Mill, Dervaig, Isle of Mull, PA75 6QS (17.04.2023) Lauren Worrell, NFU Scotland, Rural Centre – West Mains, Ingliston, Newbridge, Midlothian, EH28 8LT (18.03.2024) Representations are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (ii) Summary of issues raised: OBJECTION Conversion of existing barn • The existing barn is of historic and visual interest. • The tenant farmers still use the barn and have done so for a long time. The existing building remains in use for agricultural purposes. The building is not redundant and is part of a local enterprise. A replacement building would be required and is unlikely to be of a similarly traditional appearance. • If the existing barn building were to be removed from its current use, a replacement building would be required. The replacement building would not be in keeping with the setting. • Steading buildings that are maintained and in use on Mull are rare. Officer Comment: The barn the subject of this planning application is not listed or protected in any way. Neither is it located within a conservation area. It could, therefore, be demolished at any time without reference to the planning authority. The agent has advised that the existing barn, on the opposite side of the public road to the established farm steading, is unsuitable in terms of its siting, scale and form, and is not suitable for current agricultural use or machinery storage and does not provide an efficient space for such uses. The barn as existing is unable to accommodate agricultural machinery, meaning that machinery is kept outside. The ceasing of the agricultural use of the existing barn does not form a material planning consideration, Page 75
Page 76
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 however, the applicant submitted a prior notification application to erect a building as 'agricultural permitted development' on land to the north of Lagganulva Farm (our reference 24/00259/PNAGRI). The application was determined as permitted development in terms of Class 18 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 as amended. The report accompanying application 24/00259/PNAGRI considered that the erection of an agricultural building within the holding would have no materially negative visual impact on the environment or the wider landscape including the National Scenic Area. The replacement agricultural building is to be sensitively sited within the existing farm complex where it would be largely screened from the public realm by existing built development. The replacement agricultural building would instead relate both visually and functionally to existing buildings associated with the agricultural business and the scale of the replacement agricultural building would be commensurate with the functional need for the building and its setting in the landscape. Provision has therefore been made for an alternative building for use by the tenant farmer on land within the farm steading and closer to the existing buildings than the barn the subject of this application. The provision of the alternative agricultural building can be secured through the use of a suitable planning condition which would require it to be available for use by the tenant farmer before any works on the conversion of the existing barn commence. The existing barn would be retained as part of the development proposal. It is proposed to repair and repoint the existing stone walls of the barn and make use of the existing tiled roof. The alterations to the existing barn would be limited to repairs to the walls and roof, the installation of windows and doors, and downtakings to facilitate the adjoining of the proposed extension. In this way, the proposed development would largely preserve the existing building, thereby retaining its character and appearance. Biodiversity • The existing barn and the wider application site hosts bats, birds and otters. • Otters, bats and barn owls are present on and around the application site. • The submitted information does not demonstrate how the development would benefit biodiversity. Officer Comment: The application has been submitted with a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and an Otter and Bat Survey Report. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer was consulted on the application and confirmed agreement with the submitted information, stating that a pre-commencement survey is required to identify bird nests within the application site. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer confirmed agreement with the proposed mitigation measures in relation to the impact of the proposed development upon otters, bats and nesting birds. Suitable conditions are required to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined within the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the Otter and Bat Survey Report, and to secure the provision of a pre- commencement nesting bird survey to ensure that no bird species are compromised. NPF4 Policy 3(c) requires development proposals to include appropriate measures to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity. The information submitted with the Page 76
Page 77
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 application has demonstrated that the development proposal would conserve biodiversity. With regard to biodiversity enhancement, adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection can be delivered by planning condition, to be secured prior to the commencement of development. The condition will secure the provision of biodiversity enhancement measures prior to the occupation of the development. Landscape and visual impact • The installation of windows into the existing barn would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the National Scenic Area, increasing the prominence of the building. The existing development at Lagganulva is a focal point and the existing house and steadings are important local landmarks. The proposed extension would be harmful to the location which is highly valuable in terms of scenic beauty. • The development would be sited within the Loch na Keal National Scenic Area. The Landscape Capacity Study specifically identifies the existing Lagganulva setting for special consideration. • The nearest electricity supply is on the opposite side of the road. No information has been provided as to whether the connecting cable would run underground or result in additional unsightly poles and lines. • No information has been provided regarding landscaping and boundary treatments. Officer Comment: The proposed windows are considered to be suitable to the scale of the existing barn and would have a negligible impact upon the appearance of the existing building. The application proposes to retain the scale and form of the existing barn, to include the repair of the existing stone walls and slate roof, and in this regard the development would retain the character and appearance of the existing barn without any material harm to the character and appearance of the National Scenic Area. The proposed extension would be modest in scale, occupying a total external footprint of 56 square metres. The proposed extension would have a simple and traditional narrow, linear form and a single storey dual-pitched roof, ensuring that it would not appear as unduly prominent. The proposed timber finishing materials would assist in providing the proposed extension with a simple appearance, ensuring that it would integrate with the appearance of the rural surroundings. The extension would be sited sensitively on land between the existing barn and the public road, ensuring that it would not encroach into more open and undeveloped areas of the site. The application proposes to retain the existing development at the site through the repair and conversion of the existing stone barn. In this regard, the site would remain a focal point within the landscape. Given the small scale and appropriate form, design and appearance of the proposed extension, the visual composition of the site would not be adversely impacted and the proposal would not therefore disrupt the visual focus. Page 77
Page 78
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 A scheme for boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping is to be secured via planning condition, to include the submission of details any proposed walls, fences and gates; surface treatment; and hard and soft landscaping works. Proposed use • The area does not need short term holiday letting properties; the area instead requires long term affordable accommodation. • Granting planning permission for a development of this nature would set a precedent for the use of agricultural buildings as short-term holiday letting accommodation where agricultural buildings are already in scarce supply. Officer Comment: The proposal the subject of this planning application is seeking to secure planning permission for the conversion of and extension to the existing stone barn to form a dwellinghouse. This is by no means an unusual type of development. The Planning Authority is satisfied that the existing barn, and the application site, is able to successfully accommodate a suitably sited, scaled and designed extension which would facilitate the conversion of the existing stone barn to form a dwellinghouse which would relate to the established appearance of the surrounding area. The application relates to the provision of a dwellinghouse and does not relate to short term let accommodation. Whilst it is acknowledged that the future occupancy or tenure of the dwellinghouse is unknown, the Council currently has no planning policies that could control this and, in that regard, this is not considered a planning issue of any overriding material significance. Water supply and drainage • The application indicates a connection to the public water supply, however no such supply is available and no details have been submitted regarding the private water supply. • All existing water supplies are barely adequate and demand from another development could not be sustained. • The proposed arrangement for sewage disposal is not satisfactory; the discharge would be to Laggan Bay which is within a designated Shellfish Waters Protected Area and that must be safeguarded. • The application has not been submitted with a technical report for foul water drainage. This is relevant as the building is adjacent to a watercourse and the proposed soakaway would be adjacent to a well and on an area of ground which is waterlogged all year round. Officer Comment: The agent has confirmed that the proposed development would be served by a private water supply. A suitable pre-commencement condition is required to secure an appraisal of the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the intended private water supply and the system required to serve the development 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. Page 78
Page 79
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The application proposes the installation of a private drainage system and a soakaway. The Council’s Building Standards Service will apply sufficient control over the treatment plant arrangements at Building Warrant stage. The proposed drainage system would be regulated under the building standards to ensure that it is capable of being provided to a safe, effective and appropriate technical standard. Any discharge to the water environment would be regulated by SEPA under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (as amended). It is the responsibility of the installer and owner to ensure that the drainage system is installed and maintained correctly. Pollution enforcement is the responsibility of SEPA and as the proposed development is not located within a Waste Water Drainage Consultation Area there is no reason to assume that a safe and effective private wastewater system cannot be utilised. Additionally, the area of the marine environment within the vicinity of the proposed development site is not within either a Marine Protected Area or a Marine Consultation Area. Trees • No works should occur within the root protection area or tree protection zone. The site features veteran trees and the application describes felling, limbing, crown reduction and pollarding, which would significantly impact upon the appearance of the area. • The submitted tree report fails to recognise the age and significance of the trees and fails to take into account elder trees on the roadside boundary. • The clearance of visibility splays for the access may result in the loss of roadside trees and walls. • The trees provide a food source for insects. Officer Comment: The proposed extension to the existing barn would be sited towards the southeast corner of the application site, away from the mature trees which are sited adjacent to the northwest of the existing barn. The submitted information advises that any excavation works in the area adjacent to the tree protection zone would be excavated by hand. The application does not propose any works to the trees on site. However, given the presence of established mature trees at the site, a suitable condition is required to secure the provision of a scheme for the retention and safeguarding of trees during construction work, to include detail of any proposed tree works and a programme of measures for the protection of trees during construction works. The proposed development would not harm the Lagganulva Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest. Suitability of the site • The application has been submitted with insufficient information with regard to biodiversity, landscape impact, sustainability, water supply, the proposed use of the site, and the impact upon the Site of Special Scientific Interest designation. Page 79
Page 80
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 • The steading proposed for conversion is part of a working farmyard with characteristic noises created by animals and machinery. This may create conflict between neighbours. • The Torloisk Estate already has properties which have been moved into the self-catering market. • A house in this location is invasive of privacy. The location and design of the proposed development would negatively impact upon the residents of Lagganulva Farm and the surrounding landscape. • The barn is not a suitable site for the development proposed. • Protection is required for agricultural land which is good quality and locally important. The field associated with the steading is valuable in this location. Officer Comment: The information submitted with the application, in the form of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, photomontages, Tree Report, Otter and Bat Report, Design Statement, and ‘Six Qualities of Successful Places’ Statement have satisfactorily demonstrated that, in this instance, the proposed development site would represent an appropriate opportunity for development with a sensitively sited extension which would be of an acceptable scale, design and finish that would integrate with the application site and its wider setting within the landscape. The application site is located southwest of the existing farm. Whilst the application site and the proposed development would be located in proximity to the agricultural business, the proposed development would be sited at a sufficient distance to ensure that there would be no impact upon neighbour amenity with regard to overlooking, visual intrusion or shading. In terms of ‘bad neighbour’ development, the application site would be physically separate from the established farm, which is sited on the opposite side of the public road. The proposed development would be well contained within the application site and would not share access with the farm, nor would the application site be functionally associated with the agricultural business. The proposed development would be sufficiently distinct from the farm and its associated activity such that it is not considered that there would be any adverse impacts upon the sensitive receptor of the dwellinghouse with regard to noise disturbance, odour pollution or light pollution. The development proposed by the current application seeks to develop a rough area of ground adjacent to the existing barn. In terms of the land capability for agriculture, the application site falls within Class 5.2 where the land is capable of use as improved grassland, where pasture establishment may be difficult to maintain. The proposed development would be of a small scale and would not impact upon prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, with due consideration to the extent of the wider agricultural landholding. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No Page 80
Page 81
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☒Yes ☐No A Design Statement has been submitted with the application. (iv) A Sustainability Checklist (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) ☐Yes ☒No The application was submitted prior to the adoption of the LDP2 and has been submitted with a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, photomontages, a Tree Report, an Otter and Bat Report, a detailed Design Statement, and a ‘Six Qualities of Successful Places’ Statement, which together with the site visits undertaken, has demonstrated that there would be no significant adverse effect on landscape and visual amenity resulting from the development of the site with the conversion of, and extension to, the existing barn and therefore, in this instance, it is not considered that any further landscape/visual information is required to allow a decision on the proposal to be made. (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 81
Page 82
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application (i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application. National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 13th February 2023) Part 2 – National Planning Policy Sustainable Places NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 11 – Design – Conversions and Change of Use Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Connected Places Page 82
Page 83
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging 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 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Homes for People Policy 67 – Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs Including Affordable Housing High Quality Environment Policy 70 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas (NSA’s) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 75 – Development Impact of Sites on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 82 – Contaminated Land Policy 83 – Safeguarding Agricultural and Croft 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 • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) • ABC Landscape Studies • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement (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 Page 83
Page 84
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒No Whilst there has been considerable objection raised, it is noted that only approximately half of those objections are from the local area. In addition, the representations relate largely to the conversion of the existing barn to form a dwellinghouse and the resultant loss of its existing use for agricultural purposes. The loss of the agricultural use of the existing barn is not, in itself, a material planning consideration as it is a privately owned building that is not afforded any protection status. Whilst officers have every sympathy with the tenant farmer, the applicant has, at the insistence of the planning authority, addressed this concern through the provision of a replacement agricultural building, as detailed within application reference 24/00259/PNAGRI. With regard to objections raised in terms of biodiversity, landscape, servicing, infrastructure and access, the Officer’s recommendation is aligned with the consultation responses received on the application and as such it is not considered that a pre-determination hearing would add value to the decision making process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Loch na Keal National Scenic Area • Lagganulva Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built Up Area Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒Class 5 ☐N/A Peat Depth Classification: 1 metre 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 The application site falls within Class 5.2 where the land is capable of use as improved grassland, where pasture establishment may be difficult to maintain. The proposed development would be of a small scale such that it is considered that the proposed development would not impact upon prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, with due consideration to the extent of the wider agricultural landholding. (O)(iii) Woodland Page 84
Page 85
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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 (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations The proposal the subject of this planning application is seeking to secure planning permission for the conversion of, and extension to, an existing barn to form a dwellinghouse, and the installation of a septic tank and the formation of a vehicular access. In terms of the adopted LDP2 the site is defined as ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’ within an area identified as ‘Countryside Area' where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. Policy 02 further states that certain development will be supported, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, with these comprising, infill, redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or previously developed sites. In Countryside Areas, where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place, Policy 02 details that development proposals will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. The application site comprises an irregular plot of land located on the northern edge of Laggan Bay, immediately to the west of the B8073 public road. To the northeast of the application site, to the east of the public road, there is a farmhouse and associated outbuildings. The application site features an existing ‘L’ shaped stone barn with a hipped slate roof, set within the southeast corner of the plot. There are a number of mature trees within the site boundary. This application is seeking to secure planning permission for the conversion of, and extension to, the existing stone barn at the site to form a dwellinghouse, and the installation of a septic tank and the formation of a vehicular access. The existing stone walls of the barn would be repaired and repointed as necessary, and the slate roof would be retained. The proposed extension to the barn would be sited upon the Page 85
Page 86
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 eastern elevation and would take a linear form, orientated parallel to the public road, with a dual-pitched roof and gable ends. The application proposes the upgrade of an existing vehicular access to serve the proposed development, with the formation of a turning area and parking provision for two vehicles. The water supply would be via connection to a private supply and the foul drainage would be by way of a private system comprising a septic tank and soakaway due to the lack of public infrastructure within the vicinity of the application site. The proposal has elicited 22 objections. The main considerations relate to whether or not the conversion of, and extension to, the existing stone barn at the application site to form a dwellinghouse is appropriate in terms of scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location; whether the servicing, infrastructure and access arrangements are suitable; whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of biodiversity and landscape impacts; and whether it is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy. (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 National Planning Framework 4 and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Emma Shaw Date: 08.05.2024 Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 08.05.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 86
Page 87
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/00185/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 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. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 3. Sustainable Drainage System Page 87
Page 88
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Page 88
Page 89
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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 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. Page 89
Page 90
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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. 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. Page 90
Page 91
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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. Electric Vehicle Charging Notwithstanding Condition 1, Prior to the commencement of development, details of the provision of supply cabling suitable for electric vehicle charge points shall first be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the electric vehicle charge points must be available for use in the development hereby approved. Reason: In order to ensure compliance with LDP2 Policy 34. 11. 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. 12. 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 Page 91
Page 92
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Ecological Appraisal’ dated August 2022 and ‘Otter & Bat Surveys Report’ dated September 2022. Reason: In order to protect natural heritage assets in the interest of nature conservation. 13. 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. 14. Tree Retention and Protection Page 92
Page 93
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 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. 15. Phasing of Development Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 1, prior to the commencement of any development on site, the associated replacement agricultural building, as granted under application 24/00259/PNAGRI, shall be erected and available for use. 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. Page 93
Page 94
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 23/00185/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the conversion of, and extension to, an existing stone barn to form a dwellinghouse, the installation of a private drainage system and the formation of a vehicular access. 2. Location of Proposed Development 2.1. The application site comprises an irregular plot of land located on the northern edge of Laggan Bay, immediately to the west of the B8073 public road. 2.2. To the northeast of the application site, to the east of the public road, there is a farmhouse and associated outbuildings. The application site features an existing ‘L’ shaped stone barn with a hipped slate roof, set within the southeast corner of the plot. There are a number of mature trees within the site boundary. 3. Settlement Strategy 3.1. In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDP2, the application site is situated ‘Outwith Settlements’ in the designated ‘Countryside Area’ where Policy 02 of LDP2 gives a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as set out in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2. Policy 02 further states that certain development will be supported, generally without the need for detailed environmental assessments, with these comprising, infill, redevelopment opportunities of clusters; or previously developed sites. In Countryside Areas, where there are nature conservation or landscape designations in place, Policy 02 details that development proposals will have to demonstrate that they are compatible with the designation interests. In order to address the determining issues, the key considerations in this application are: 3.1.1. Compliance with the Development Plan and other relevant planning policy. 3.1.2. Whether the conversion of, and extension to, the existing stone barn at the application site to form a dwellinghouse is appropriate in terms of scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location. 3.1.3. The suitability of the proposed servicing, access and infrastructure arrangements. 3.1.4. Any other material considerations. 4. Proposal 4.1. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for the conversion of, and extension to, the existing stone barn to form a dwellinghouse, and the installation of a private drainage system and the formation of a vehicular access. 4.2. The proposal relates to the refurbishment of and extension to an existing stone barn to form a dwellinghouse. The existing barn, which has an ‘L’ shaped footprint covering an area of approximately 89 square metres, is constructed of stone walls with a hipped slate Page 94
Page 95
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 roof. The proposal would involve repairing and repointing the existing stone walls. The proposed extension would adjoin the east elevation of the existing barn and would take a narrow linear form with a small linking corridor, occupying a total footprint of 56 square metres. The extension would have a dual-pitched roof set at a height of 4.7 metres with an eaves height of 2.5 metres. The linking corridor set between the exiting barn and the proposed extension, would have a flat roof at a height of 2.4 metres, set below the eaves height of the existing barn. The proposed extension would feature large single windows within the south, north and west elevations, and there would be two rooflights within the east elevation roofslope. Windows would be inserted within each elevation of the existing barn. An appropriate condition is required to secure the exact details of the proposed facing and roofing materials so as to ensure that the proposed development integrates into its surroundings. 4.3. The existing vehicular access into the site, positioned to the north of the existing barn, would be upgraded and a parking and turning area would be formed. The application includes the installation of a private drainage system and connection to a private water supply. 5. Compliance with National Policy 5.1. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. 5.2. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. 5.3. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. The application has been submitted with a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, which sought to establish the potential for the application site to support protected species known to inhabit the area, namely otters, nesting birds, bats, reptiles, and butterflies/day flying Page 95
Page 96
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 moths and bats. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal also sought to map the habitats within the site boundary to identify the presence of any priority habitats or flora. The existing barn was classed as having ‘Moderate’ bat roost potential and four trees within the application site boundary were found to have the potential to support bats, classed as ‘Low’ potential. No notable or rare plant species or habitats were identified on the site. No evidence was discovered to suggest the presence of otters within the application site. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has been consulted on the application and confirmed agreement that additional surveys were required with regard to the impact of the proposed development upon otters and bats. The consultation response from the Council’s Biodiversity Officer confirmed agreement that a pre-commencement survey is required to identify bird nests within the application site and a Tree Protection and Management Plan is provided so as to protect the existing trees within the application site during the clearance and construction phases of the proposed development. An Otter and Bat Survey Report was subsequently submitted following the findings and recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. The Report stated that an otter survey undertaken concluded that is unlikely that there is an otter holt close enough to the development site as to be at risk of disturbance and therefore no European Protected Species Licence need be sought in respect of otters. However, at least one otter utilises the burn adjacent to the site and therefore mitigation measures should be adhered to. The two trees adjacent to the existing barn were subject to activity surveys however were not found to contain bat roosts and therefore no further survey work would be required. The Report states that the proposed development of the existing barn would result in the destruction of two summer roosting non-maternity Soprano pipistrelle roosts impacting on up to three Soprano pipistrelle bats and one summer roosting Brown Long-eared roost impacting on up to five Brown Long-eared bats. A European Protected Species Licence for bats would be required and mitigation measures adhered to. The Report further states that due to the nature of the habitat present and the identification of several nests within the site boundary and within the barn itself, should the development be planned to take place during the breeding bird season, pre-construction checks for nests would be required. Following the submission of the Otter and Bat Survey Report, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer was re-consulted and confirmed agreement with the proposed mitigation measures in relation to the impact of the proposed development upon otters, bats and nesting birds. Subject to relevant conditions to ensure that the proposed development is carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined within the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and the Otter and Bat Survey Report and to secure the provision of a pre-commencement nesting bird survey to ensure that no bird species are compromised, the proposal would adhere to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3(d). Whilst no specific proposals for biodiversity improvements have been submitted it is considered that adequate and proportionate measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection can be delivered by planning condition. Such a condition will be attached to this permission. With a condition to secure adequate and proportionate biodiversity enhancement and protection measures within the development, the proposal aligns with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. 5.4. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. Page 96
Page 97
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 NPF4 Policy 4(a) states that development proposals which by virtue of type, location or scale will have an unacceptable impact on the natural environment, will not be supported. In this instance, the proposed development relates to the addition of a small scale extension to an existing building to facilitate the conversion of the building to form a dwellinghouse. The proposal would make use of an existing building and its setting, and the proposed extension would be of a small scale such that there would be no adverse impact upon the surrounding environment. The application site lies within the Loch na Keal National Scenic Area, designated for its coastal scenery, expansive seascape and interior mountain peaks. The application site lies within the Outer Loch na Keal Area, which comprises relatively level terrain and alluvial deposits. The development would be set against the backdrop of rugged steeper slopes and would make use of an existing building to ensure that the development would not encroach upon undeveloped sites or impact upon key views. The consultation response received from NatureScot advised that the proposed development would be sited within the Loch na Keal National Scenic Area, however given the size and scale of the proposed development and with regard to previous developments within the application site, the integrity of the National Scenic Area or the qualities for which it has been designated, would not be adversely affected. It is therefore the considered opinion of the Planning Authority that the proposal would not result in any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area. The proposed development is sited within the Lagganulva Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest, designated for its geological interest and upland oak woodland habitat. The proposed development would have no ecological connectivity to the site’s qualifying interests and would not therefore undermine the conservation of the qualifying interests. In line with the consultee response received from NatureScot, the proposal would not have a significant effect on the natural heritage interests of national importance due to the proposed development being sited away from the features for which the site has been designated. In this regard, the proposal would be compliant with NPF4 Policy 4 and LDP2 Policies 70 and 75. Notwithstanding the above, the proposed development is not within any designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection, it is not located within a National Park, a RAMSAR site, or a National Nature Reserve. Neither is it located within a site designated as a local nature conservation site or landscape area or within an area identified as wild land. 5.5. NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 5 seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, to restore peatlands and to minimise disturbance to soils from development. The development proposed by the current application seeks to develop a rough area of ground adjacent to the existing barn. In terms of the land capability for agriculture, the application site falls within Class 5.2 where the land is capable of use as improved grassland, where pasture establishment may be difficult to maintain. The proposed development would be of a small scale such that the proposed development would not impact upon prime agricultural land, or land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use, with due consideration to the extent of the wider agricultural landholding. The application site is located within an area designated as Class 5 Carbon and Peatland, where no peatland habitat has been recorded. The proposed development would not therefore adversely impact upon peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat. Page 97
Page 98
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 The development proposed is therefore considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 5 and Policies 79 and 83 of LDP2. 5.6. NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 6 seeks to protect and expand forests, woodland and trees. The application site features a number of large Sycamore trees which are long-established and are exposed to the prevailing south westerly wind. The application has been submitted with a Tree Report detailing a general description of the trees present at the application site, the dimensions and details of the individual trees, and options for their management. The information submitted with the application indicates that there is a small overlap of the tree protection zone in the location where the existing barn is sited. The information submitted with the application advises that any excavation inside the existing barn in this location would be limited and carried out by hand. The submitted information further advises that any excavation works in the area adjacent to the tree protection zone would be excavated by hand. The proposed extension to the existing barn would be sited towards the southeast corner of the application site, away from the mature trees which are sited adjacent to the northwest of the existing barn. Given the presence of establish mature trees at the site, a suitable condition is required to secure the provision of a scheme for the retention and safeguarding of trees during construction work, to include detail on any proposed tree works and a programme of measures for the protection of trees during construction works. The proposed development would not adversely impact ancient woodland, veteran trees or native woodland and the proposed development would not lead to the fragmentation of woodland habitats. Subject to a suitable condition to secure appropriate tree protection measures, the proposed development would adhere to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 6 and the provisions of LDP2 Policy 77. 5.7. NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. NPF4 Policy 9(d) provides support for development proposals for the reuse of existing buildings, taking into account their suitability for conversion to other uses. Given the need to conserve embodied energy, demolition will be regarded as the least preferred option. The development the subject of this current application proposes to convert and extend the existing stone barn at the application site to form a dwellinghouse. The development proposal would retain the existing stone barn, with repairs to the existing stone walls undertaken as necessary. It is considered that the conversion of the existing stone barn would constitute an appropriate redevelopment opportunity whereby the character and appearance of the existing barn would be retained without the need for significant alterations. The proposed extension would be sited immediately adjacent to the existing barn and in this regard is considered to be brownfield site and accordingly the use of the land for the proposed extension is considered to represent the sustainable reuse of brownfield land which is afforded direct support under NPF4 Policy 9(a). The application site lies ‘Outwith Settlement Areas’ in the designated ‘Countryside Area’. LDP2 Policy 02, Outwith Settlement Areas, seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in areas identified as Countryside Area, with Part A of Policy 02 giving a Page 98
Page 99
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies. In this instance, the proposal involves the conversion of an existing barn and the addition of an appropriately scaled and designed extension to form a dwellinghouse. The scale of the proposed development would be appropriate to the size of the wider application site and its setting within the landscape. The proposed design would be of a simple form, respecting local architectural styles and the siting would be such that it would not appear as obtrusive within the landscape, making use of the existing built development at the site. In this instance, the site is considered to represent an appropriate opportunity for the conversion, redevelopment and extension to the existing barn to form a dwellinghouse within the Countryside Area which has been specifically designed with due regard to the context of the site in terms of its character and appearance and in this regard would be consistent with NPF4 Policy 9 which does not conflict with the spatial and settlement strategy set out in LDP2 Policy 02. The Council’s Environmental Health Service have been consulted on the application with regard to previous, potentially contaminative, uses of the site. NPF4 Policy 9(c) states that where land is known or suspected to be unstable or contaminated, development proposals will demonstrate that the land is, or can be made, safe and suitable for the proposed new use. An appropriate planning condition is required to ensure that, prior to the commencement of development, a phased site investigation and risk assessment is carried out to identify and assess potential contamination on site. Subject to such a condition, the proposed development would adhere to the requirements of NPF4 Policy 9(c) and LDP2 Policy 82. 5.8. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 12 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. The development the subject of this planning application seeks to secure permission for the conversion of an extension to an existing building to form a new single dwellinghouse. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it would benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and would be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. In this regard, the proposed development is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 and does not conflict with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 63, Waste Related Development and Waste Management, which seek to ensure that effective provision for waste and recycling are provided within developments. 5.9. NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport This application is seeking to secure permission for a single dwellinghouse which is not considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. The application site as existing features a vehicular access from the B8073 public road. It is proposed within this application to upgrade the existing vehicular access into the site and provide a parking and turning area within the application site, to be sited immediately to the north of the existing barn. The Council’s Area Roads Authority have been consulted on the application and have raised no objections subject to conditions relating to the construction of the access at the Page 99
Page 100
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 junction with the public road, the clearance and maintenance of visibility splays, the provision of a system of surface water drainage, and the provision of a parking and turning area for two vehicles. Subject to the required conditions, the proposed development is consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policies 35, 37, 39 and 40 which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with the scale of the development proposed. 5.10. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. The proposed conversion of the existing barn would be undertaken with minimal works to the existing external appearance of the barn, with works limited to repairs to the existing stone walls and slate roof, and the installation of windows. It is considered that the siting of the proposed extension in the existing vacant area between the existing barn and the public road would ensure that the proposal would not encroach into more undeveloped areas of the site, thereby reducing its visual impact upon the landscape. New built development at the site would be limited to the proposed extension, which would have a modest footprint and an appropriately simple form and appearance. The narrow linear form would respect local architectural styles and would readily integrate into the application site. The proposed finishing materials would comprise natural timber cladding, which would contrast appropriately with the stone walls of the existing barn, giving the proposed extension a suitably subservient appearance that would read clearly as a later addition. The use of natural timber cladding would assist in integrating the proposed extension into the landscape. The proposed extension would be a contemporary addition that would have a different character to the existing barn, however it would be of a sympathetic design and appropriately sited such that it would respect the application site and its wider rural context. The siting of the access to the north of the existing building ensures that it would be screened from view when approaching the application site from the south. The proposed parking and turning area would be facilitated within the courtyard that would result from the ‘U’ shaped built development at the site. A condition is proposed to remove permitted development rights normally associated with residential properties in order to protect the setting of the proposed dwellinghouse from inappropriate development. The proposed development is considered to be designed to an appropriate standard to ensure compliance with the six qualities of successful places set out in NPF4 Policy 14 as follows. Healthy: being situated within a quiet rural setting but within proximity to an existing community; Pleasant: being an attractively designed and finished development that would contribute to the character of the area; Connected: situated immediately adjacent to the public road, connecting the development to larger settlements; Distinctive: the design of the development would be of a distinct, high quality design which would respond to its unique setting whilst respecting the surrounding natural landscape; Sustainable: the dwelling would utilise appropriately proportioned and designed fenestration which would maximise potential for natural light; Adaptable: the development would be of a high quality design that would be capable of adaption for accessibility and for alternative future uses. NPF4 Policy 14(c) states that development proposals that are detrimental to the amenity of the area will not be supported. ‘Bad neighbour uses’ are uses that can result in a Page 100
Page 101
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 negative impact upon neighbouring amenity and proposals for development can also introduce the reverse situation by proposing a sensitive receptor, including housing, in close proximity to existing operations or land uses where the introduction of sensitive receptors into these situations could compromise the existing operations. In this instance, the proposed conversion of and extension to the existing barn to form a dwellinghouse is not considered to be a ‘bad neighbour’ development given that the application site is sited at a sufficient distance from the established farm, on the opposite side of the public road. The proposed development would be well contained within the application site and would be adequately separate from the farm both physically and visually. The proposed development would be sufficiently distinct from the farm and its associated activity such that it is not considered that there would be any adverse impacts upon the sensitive receptor of the dwellinghouse with regard to noise disturbance, odour pollution or light pollution that may result from the use of the nearby land for agricultural activity. The development the subject of this planning application is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 14 and does not conflict with the sustainable siting and design policies of LDP2 namely Policy 5, Design and Placemaking, Policy 08, Sustainable Siting, Policy 09, Sustainable Design and Policy 10, Design: all policies which, in summary, collectively seek to ensure that developments are compatible with surrounding land uses, are sited sensitively within the landscape making use of existing infrastructure, are of an appropriate scale, sustainable design and finishes for their site, and ensure that no adverse visual or amenity impacts arise. 5.11. NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 15 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the application of the ‘Place Principle’ and create connected and compact neighbourhoods where people can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, preferably by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. In terms of our adopted settlement strategy, the site of the proposed dwellinghouse is in an area identified as being Outwith Settlement Areas where LDP2 Policy 02 seeks to promote a more flexible approach to development in areas identified as Countryside Area, within which the site is situated, with Part A of Policy 02 giving a presumption in favour of sustainable development where it is of an appropriate scale, design, siting and use for its countryside location, as detailed in the relevant sustainable siting and design policies. In this instance, it is considered that the small scale of the proposed development, and its rural location, would reasonably comply with Policy 15 of NPF4 given the existing dispersed geographical scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and given its compliance with the existing settlement pattern and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 02. 5.12. NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 16 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs. Policy 16(c) supports development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified Page 101
Page 102
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 gaps in provision, including ‘self-provided homes’ of which the proposed development represents. With regards to Part (f) of Policy 16(i) an agreed timescale for build-out will be covered through the use of a planning condition; 16(ii), whilst the development proposed by this planning application is not on land actively allocated for housing in the LDP2, it would wholly accord with the adopted settlement strategy and would accord with the principles of ‘local living’ and ’20 minute neighbourhoods’; 16(iii) the proposal is consistent with NPF4 Policy 17, Rural Homes, being a suitable site which is in keeping with the landscape character of the area. The proposed development is deemed to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 16 and there is no conflict with LDP 2 Policy 02, Outwith Settlement due to the proposed development being of an appropriate scale, design and use for its countryside location. 5.13. NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 17 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Policy 17(a) supports development proposals for new homes in rural areas where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area. It has been demonstrated at NPF4 Policies 9 and 14 above that the proposed dwellinghouse is of a suitable scale and design for its countryside location. Policy 17(b) requires proposals for new homes in rural areas to consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs. It is has already been seen at NPF4 Policy 15 above that the proposed development is consistent with our adopted settlement strategy policies and that it would have no materially harmful access or environmental impact. The proposed development seeks the introduction of a single dwellinghouse through the conversion of and extension to an existing barn, which would accord with the Council’s key planning policies aims of supporting and sustaining fragile rural communities by contributing to actions to reverse our falling rural populations and supporting the local economy. Policy 17(c) offers support to new homes in remote rural areas where such proposals (i) support and sustain existing fragile communities; (ii) support identified local housing outcomes; and (iii) are suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact. The development proposed accords with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 17 and does not conflict with LDP2 Policy 09, Sustainable Development, Policy 10, Design all Development, and Policy 67, Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs. 5.14. NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. Due to the lack of public water or drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site, as was confirmed within the consultation response from Scottish Water, the application proposes private arrangements comprising a private water supply and a private drainage system. A condition is required to secure a report on the proposed private water supply to ensure that it is sufficient to serve the proposed development and does not impact on existing users of the same supply or adjacent supplies. The Council’s Building Standards Page 102
Page 103
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 Service will apply sufficient control over the septic tank arrangements at Building Warrant stage. With a condition to secure a report on the proposed private water supply, the proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 18 and is in accordance with LDP2 Policy 04, Sustainable Development, Policy 58, Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation and Policy 60, Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems which seek to ensure that suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments and give support to private water supply and drainage arrangements where connection to the public systems is not available. 5.15. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. As detailed at NPF4 Policy 18 above, the development the subject of this planning application proposes a private water supply, the details of which will be sought by planning condition. With regards to the management of rain and surface water at the site, this will be controlled thorough a condition imposed on the grant of permission to secure a suitable sustainable drainage system for the site. The proposal aligns with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 61, Sustainable Drainage Systems. 6. Other Considerations 6.1. Public Representation The application has been subject to 22 objections. The determining factor in the assessment of this application is whether the conversion of and extension to the existing stone barn to form a dwellinghouse at the site the subject of this application is consistent with the Development Plan which comprise National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues raised by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold planning permission. In this instance, as detailed above, the proposed development would represent a suitable opportunity for the conversion of, and extension to, an existing barn to form a dwellinghouse where the development would be of an appropriate scale and design for its setting. The proposed development would involve the sustainable reuse of the existing built development at the site, with an appropriately scaled, sited and designed extension, to form a dwellinghouse. The applicant has addressed the needs of the tenant farmer through the provision of a replacement agricultural building, as detailed within application 24/00259/PNAGRI, where the replacement agricultural building is of a scale that is commensurate with the need and its setting within the landscape, is related physically and functionally to existing buildings associated with the agricultural business, and is sensitively sited. The information submitted with the application has satisfactorily demonstrated that, subject to appropriate conditions, there would be no adverse impacts on biodiversity, nature networks or the natural environment. No objections have been received from consultees with regards to the proposed infrastructure to serve the proposed development. 7. Conclusion Page 103
Page 104
LDP2 format template Feb 2024 Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 10.11.2023 7.1. The detailed information submitted with the application, in the form of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, photomontages, Tree Report, Otter and Bat Report, Design Statement, and ‘Six Qualities of Successful Places’ Statement have satisfactorily demonstrated that, in this instance, the proposed development site would represent an appropriate opportunity for the conversion of and extension to the existing stone barn to form a sensitively sited and designed dwellinghouse that would be of an acceptable scale, design and finish that would integrate with the application site and its wider setting within the landscape. The above assessment has concluded that appropriate servicing and infrastructure arrangements can be provided to serve a dwellinghouse on the site. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Page 104
Page 105
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2005 Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No. XYZ123ABC Location Plan Relative to Planning Application: 23/00185/PP O 1:1,250 Application Site Page 105
Page 106
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 107
1 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: 23/01758/MFF Planning Hierarchy: Local Application Applicant: Bakkafrost Scotland Ltd Proposal: Formation of fish farm (Atlantic Salmon) incorporating 8x 160m circumference circular cages and siting of feed barge Site Address: West of Isle of Gigha 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 • Installation of 8 x 160m circumference pens in a 120 m x 120 m mooring grid matrix, held in two linear rows of 4 pens; • Installation of pole mounted top nets; • Installation of 600 tonne feed barge, 33 m x 13.5 m, unloaded height from water level 10.95m, fully loaded height from water level 8.7m; • Sub-surface lighting for use during the production process installed at a 6m depth. (ii) Other specified operations • Navigational lighting in accordance with the requirements of the NLB. • Biomass of 3,104 tonnes (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that: 1. Members consider holding a pre-determination Hearing; and 2. Planning permission be approved subject to conditions. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government (dated 24/11/23): Given the exposed location of the site, there are concerns over the welfare of young fish being stocked on site and their ability to withstand the currents and environmental conditions experienced on site. It is noted the applicant state that Page 107 Agenda Item 6
Page 108
2 Classification: OFFICIAL larger smolts will be stocked onto the site; the production plan details that the average size of smolts being stocked will be 164g, with a production cycle of up to 18 months. Details of the considerations made on the suitability of the site for fish of this size whilst ensuring any impacts to welfare are mitigated against should be provided. This information may be included in the Veterinary Health and Welfare Plan which is referenced but not provided. Ballan wrasse are proposed to be stocked on site for biological control of lice at a ratio of 3-6% to salmon, prior to the first summer of the production cycle to allow for effective acclimatisation and will be obtained from farmed and wild sources. The applicant has experience with cleanerfish from their existing Gigha sites, however the exposed nature of the site raises concerns on the welfare of the cleanerfish to be stocked on site, as the open pen exposed environment will differ more considerably from their natural environment. Details of considerations made on cleanerfish welfare at this location should be provided. This information may be included in the Veterinary Health and Welfare Plan which is referenced but not provided. Further information required: • Details of the considerations made on the suitability of the site for fish of this size; • Details of considerations made on cleanerfish welfare at this location; • Practical time taken for FLS treatment of the 8x 160 pens; • Attestation on the suitability of pens proposed for use on site; • Explanation on suitability of high utilisation factors of moorings equipment; • Confirmation that equipment specified in moorings analysis report will be installed on site, or details of any further adjustments made. Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government (dated 28/02/24): Details of the considerations made on the suitability of the site for fish of this size The applicant states that considerations have been made by BFS for the health of welfare of fish in high energy farming locations. Smolts are proposed to be raised in RAS hatcheries and will be acclimatised to higher flow rates leading up to their transfer off site. Size of smolts at initial stocking of the site is proposed as 164g but it is the aim for this to be increased towards 500g in future generations to increase robustness. Pre transfer health examination and documented risk analysis will be undertaken prior to transfer from freshwater facilities and subject to review and approval by another biologist; transfers will only be undertaken when stock is healthy and robust. If there are any doubts over the ability of stock to deal with the high energy sea site location, stock could be held at one of the applicant’s existing sites on the east side of Gigha and transferred to the proposed site when fish reach between 500g -1kg. Details of considerations made on cleanerfish welfare at this location Details of the considerations made are provided: a pre transfer exam is given to farmed origin ballan wrasse prior to transfer to ensure the health of animals moved onto site, wild origin ballan wrasse are also given visual inspections. The applicant also state that sufficient hides and shelters will be made available to cleanerfish species, and believe with these adjustments the pen environment will provide suitable shelter despite the exposed location. Page 108
Page 109
3 Classification: OFFICIAL Practical time taken for FLS treatment of the 8x 160m pens Practical application time for FLS treatment across all 8 pens on site is stated as 4 days. This is deemed to be satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen. Attestation on the suitability of pens proposed for use on site An attestation is provided from ScaleAQ for the design of all sea based equipment, net, pens, moorings and barge, which states these are designed and produced in accordance with the Norwegian Technical Standard or Internationals Standards with equal reliability level. Furthermore, it confirms that the equipment proposed is deemed suitable for the West Gigha site. In conjunction with the statement in the EIA, that all equipment and site installation will be in accordance with A Technical Standard for Scottish Finfish Aquaculture (STS), the information provided is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen. Explanation on suitability of high utilisation factors of moorings equipment The company that undertook to the mooring analysis for the site, ScaleAQ, have provided a statement which states that the reliability and structural integrity of the system are deemed sufficient when utilisation factors are maintained at or below 1.0; explaining that the utilisation factor includes defined material and load factors in accordance with the Norwegian Technical Standard, and at 1.0 still gives an extremely good margin against overloading of components. They also confirm that the site data for West Gigha is well defined and good quality. Furthermore, an “as built” analysis will be conducted following installation to verify the anchor positions and components installed to ensure they have sufficient capacity. This is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen from the information provided. Confirmation that equipment specified in moorings analysis report will be installed on site, or details of any further adjustments made The applicant has confirmed that the equipment specified in the moorings analysis report is intended to be installed on the proposed site to ensure the moorings system is capable of withstanding the environmental conditions on site. The “as built” analysis conducted by Scale AQ following installation will verify the anchor positions and components installed to ensure they have sufficient capacity. This is deemed satisfactory as far as can reasonably be foreseen from the information provided. No further information required. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (dated 16/11/23): No objection. We can confirm that we received an application under the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) for the proposed development in April 2023. We were satisfied that the proposed biomass was reasonable within the scope of the new regulatory framework and a permit was issued in Aug.2023. Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (dated 7/8/24): The advice in our previous letter remains valid and we have no objections to the application from a planning perspective. We would however take this opportunity to make the additional comments regarding sea lice and their potential impacts on wild salmon. SEPA has now completed its screening assessment of this proposal in relation to sea lice and their potential impacts on wild salmon. The screening assessment indicates that one Wild Salmon Protection Zones (WSPZ) (Mull of Kintyre – West) is influenced by the proposed site. The screening assessment output indicates that in terms of a relative contribution to that WSPZ, the sea lice exposure risk would not materially change with the farm in operation. Page 109
Page 110
4 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and District Salmon Fishery Board (dated 13/12/23): Our consultation response to the application is made in respect to the importance of migratory fish populations in several rivers on the West coast of Kintyre including the Barr Water,Clachaig Water, Killean Burn, Tayinloan Burn, Ballachroy Burn and Clachan Burn which support important populations of Atlantic salmon and sea trout which support active recreational fisheries, local employment, and economy. Our primary interest remains the reduction of pressure on wild salmonids from sea lice, fish diseases and escaped farm fish. The addition of a further 3,104 tonnes of farm fish production in addition to the existing 2,500 Tonnes at Druimyeon Bay and 2,499 tonnes at East Tarbert Bay increases potential for farm and wild fish interactions which can negatively affect vulnerable wild salmonid fish populations. We urge that in the event of planning permission being granted for the farm at West Gigha, annual monitoring of the sea lice on sea trout are undertaken in the area and a programme of genetic monitoring of wild salmon populations within the is undertaken as part of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP). We note that the proposed EMP supporting the application does not include the participation of a wild fishery management group that directly represent migratory fish. Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board are parties to several other EMP agreements with other fish farm operators and are working constructively with these companies to ensure that wild fish are protected by a mutually agreed programme of wild fish monitoring and a mechanism for changes to on-farm practices monitoring shows an adverse impact on wild salmonid fish. We urge that it is important to include a suitable wild fish organisation, such as Argyll DSFB, in a formally agreed EMP. In summary, Argyll DSFB has concerns that the proposed new fish farm at West Gigha may cause additional pressures on local migratory fish populations. If planning permission is granted for the site, we urge that it includes conditions that guarantee sea lice management meet the required levels within the Wild Salmon Protection Zone and that the fish are effectively contained at the site(s). We also require that an EMP that monitor sea lice and genetic health of wild salmon populations is a condition of any change in the planning permission. Historic Environment Scotland (dated 15/11/23): Our remit is world heritage sites, scheduled monuments and their setting, category A-listed buildings and their setting, and gardens and designed landscapes (GDLs) and battlefields in their respective inventories. We previously responded at Screening/Scoping for the proposed development (February 2022, 1/02713/SCRSCO). In our response we noted that we were content that the presence of a fish farm in this location would not generate significant setting impacts on the nearby monument Dun An Trinnse (SM3230). We were also content that the risk of impacts on known marine assets would be minimal, and for the assessment of impacts on heritage assets within our remit to be scoped out of the Environmental Impact Assessment. We have considered the information received and do not have any comments to make on the proposals. Gigha Community Council (undated): Gigha Community Council conducted a whole island, paper based questionnaire regarding the proposed fish farm in this application. Every inhabited property on Gigha had a questionnaire delivered to them. We received 83 responses. 61% of residents were against the proposed Page 110
Page 111
5 Classification: OFFICIAL new fish farm and 39% of them were in favour. As a reflection of the majority view GCC objects to this planning application. The concerns raised relate to the following issues: • Visual amenity and sense of wildness • Special protection area status and priority habitats. • Affect on small scale local creel fishermen • Light and noise pollution • Over development • Concerns over Bakkafrost’s poor track record on Gigha • Jobs • Infrastructure Gigha Community Council (email dated 17/3/24): This further response from GCC highlights some serious inconsistencies on the length of path and coastline that the applicant claims will be negatively affected by the proposed development and some wildly unrealistic claims about mitigating factors. Because of this confusion GCC believes that the only sure way members of the planning committee could actually gauge this for themselves would be to consider a site visit. Is there any way this can be formally requested? Gigha Community Council (undated): The Community Council issued a rebuttal to the applicant’s Consultation Analysis Report. This relates mainly to statements made in relation to landscape and visual issues, however, it also refers to GCC’s own island survey on the proposal, fish mortalities, employment and the exposed nature of the site. Gigha Community Council (email dated 4/7/24): Submitted in response to the Western Link Visual Appraisal document. The no.1 concern of the island wide survey was the impact that the proposal would have on the beautiful and totally unspoiled west coast of Gigha. The new visual appraisal document has not allayed these fears. Do not agree with the conclusions of the report that the overall effect on walkers would be generally minor. People walking on the new western path will undoubtedly be doing so in order to experience the west coast of Gigha’s world-class sense of coastal beauty and isolation from manmade objects. Their enjoyment would be a sum of their entire experience, not just the 4/5 of the path, from which there was no view or only a distant view of a large industrial fish farm. Their overall impression would be dominated by the time they spend close to the fish farm. Marine and Coastal Development Policy Officer (dated 7/12/23): Concerns raised with regard to commercial fisheries. 1. It is important to note that the data presented for brown crab and European lobster does not account for less than or equal to 12-meter vessels. Under section 12.4.5.2.1 Brown Crab and European Lobster, the Applicant is asked to clarify the specific dates that the assessment for brown crab and European lobster were used from the ScotMap data set? Was it from 2007-2011? Has the Applicant undertaken a more recent assessment of the available data, from 2021-2022 for example? If not, can the Applicant please explain why this was not the case? 2. It is important to note that in times of rough seas, smaller fishing vessels (less Page 111
Page 112
6 Classification: OFFICIAL than or equal to 12 meters) are likely to use inshore coastal waters. Has the Applicant considered that the Proposal will displace important overwintering inshore fishing vessels/grounds from the Gigha fishing community? 3. Much of the data presented within the EIAR covers the period 2009-2013, it is therefore unlikely to be a true representation of actual fishing intensity right now. Given that Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) track data was not collected for less than or equal to 12-meter vessels for the ICES 40E4 Rectangle, the assessment is not a true and accurate representation for all fishing vessels, particularly those under 12 meters. It is the Officer’s understanding that historical and recent fishing track data for vessels less than or equal to 12-meters is available from the Gigha fishing community and should have been incorporated into the Applicant’s assessment. Given that the proposed farm footprint is likely to interact with fishing activity, the applicant was advised at the Screening/Scoping stage to consult with the West Coast Regional Inshore Fisheries Group (WCRIFG) chair, and the Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA) in the first instance to discuss pre- planning. This appears to not have been the case. 4. The Applicant has not submitted the attestation on the suitability of pens proposed for use on site. The Applicant is asked to submit this please. Clyde Fishermen’s Association (dated 2/12/23): Bakkafrost have reached out to clearly communicate their intentions with this site and we have provided tracks of our fishing boats and explained how important the site is to our fishermen, and given this issue we would have to object. There is a basic competition issue for this space, and this space already provides stable long term employment for small scale static and local small scale mobile family fishing boats. The safeguarding of existing employment and wild fisheries has to be taken into account. The local fishing community are becoming increasingly concerned with the fairly constant loss of indigenous fishing grounds to aquaculture. We would be happy to provide more fishing tracks of local generational fishing boats to help establish that local boats have fished in this area for many years. We often hear Councils or developers state they have mitigated impact to fisheries through ScotMAp, however under 12m fishing boats are not captured at all by ScotMap. In this area many boats are under 12m. We have therefore attached some screenshots of fishing tracks / plots in the area demonstrating clearly the area is fished and is of significant socio-economic importance to our member boats and doe small boats who were not in our association. Concerns relating to significant effects due to sewage and chemical pollution from fish farms. The site will further encroach further into safe, wild fishing grounds. Concerns relating to debris emanating from fish farms. Concern over dead salmon which are being recovered which appear to be from fish farms and concern about the proliferation of sea lice. Following this consultation response further track were submitted by CFA. Page 112
Page 113
7 Classification: OFFICIAL Clyde Fishermen’s Association (dated 10/9/24): in principle the CFAs stance is to generally not be supportive of new or expanded aquaculture in the area due to loss of space and concern that sediment and water column testing must be completed by Sepa independently for the area and in detail as it was a number of years back for Shetland. However Bakkafrost have made attempts to work with some CFA members to minimise the impact to fishing members in this case in terms of space. Whilst we still have concerns generally and note concern over the need for Sepa testing, we recognise a compromise has been made by Bakkafrost to work with some local fishermen in this area in terms of footprint of the site. Northern Lighthouse Board (dated 31/12/23): Consultation response includes details of lighting and marking requirements. Royal Yachting Association (dated 6/11/23): RYA Scotland has no objection to this application. Argyll and Bute Biodiversity Officer (dated 20/12/23): Due to early retirement the Biodiversity Officer unable to provide a response for this development. However, the Marine and Coastal Development Policy Officer and NatureScot have adequately covered these issues. West Highland Anchorages and Moorings Association: No response to date. West Coast Regional Inshore Fishery Group: No response to date. Argyll and Bute Environmental Health (dated 4/9/24): I have reviewed the application and would recommend the following conditions be attached to any permission granted; Operational Noise The application is for the formation of a fish farm located approximately 625m off the West coast of Gigha. The nearest noise sensitive property on Gigha being approximately 1,300m away from the proposed development. Upon reviewing the application it seems that the main operational activities that could generate noise would be generators and/or pumps associated with the barge and floating pens, and marine vessel activity. The applicant has submitted a full Environmental Impact Assessment Report outlining noise mitigation measures that will be adopted during operation of the fish farm. Given the remote location it is not anticipated that the proposed development will cause a statutory noise issue however, it would be advisable to attach a safeguarding condition to any permission granted. NatureScot (dated 29/1/24 and 26/6/24): The proposal lies within the Sound of Gigha SPA protected for its qualifying interests of wintering great northern diver, red-breasted merganser, eider and Slavonian grebe. The proposal could be progressed with appropriate mitigation, however, because it could affect an internationally important natural heritage interest, we object unless it is made subject to conditions so that the works are done strictly in accordance with the mitigation detailed in Annex A. Page 113
Page 114
8 Classification: OFFICIAL The proposal also affects a nationally important population of a protected species as described in the accompanying confidential Annex B. We object to the proposal unless it is made subject to conditions detailed in confidential Annex B. Sound of Gigha SPA Argyll and Bute Council is required to consider the effect of the proposal on the SPA before it can be consented. Argyll and Bute Council as competent is required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. Ailsa Craig SPA The proposal is likely to have significant effect on the northern gannet qualifying interest of Ailsa Craig SPA. Consequently Argyll and Bute Council as competent is required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment. Inner Hebrides and the Minches (IHM) SAC The proposal is located 5km from the IHM SAC. The proposed vessel transit route (VTR) crosses into the SAC at its southern edge as the route heads around the north end of Gigha. Our advice is that this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the harbour porpoise qualifying interest of the SAC. We advise that on the basis of the information provided, if the proposal is carried out strictly in adherence to the Vessel Management protocols as set out in the applicant’s Vessel Management Plan (including cetacean protocol), our conclusion is that it will no longer be likely to have a significant effect and appropriate assessment will not be required. Species of Conservation Importance The proposal could be progressed with appropriate mitigation. However, because it could affect nationally important natural heritage interests, we object unless it is made subject to conditions so the works are done strictly in accordance with the mitigation detailed in confidential Annex B. Wild Salmonids Sea trout and Atlantic salmon are both Priority Marine Feature (PMFs) and this proposal has the potential to impact on both species, particularly in relation to sea lice burdens. We consider that the supplied Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and confidential annex adequately addresses on-farm and wild fish monitoring requirements and provides mechanisms for feedback and reactive/adaptive management, up to and including escalated actions such as early harvest / depopulation. We are satisfied that the contents of the EMP and Wild Fisheries Sea Lice Monitoring Strategy in the context of monitoring and managing risks to wild salmonids associated with nationally important watercourses. We defer to the District Salmon Fisheries Board and / or Marine Scotland to provide further advice to the Planning Authority on the local significance of any wild salmon populations likely to be impacted by the proposal. NatureScot will defer to Marine Directorate to advise on the adequacy of the equipment in this location and monitoring requirements to ensure equipment integrity. Page 114
Page 115
9 Classification: OFFICIAL Regarding the potential conflicts between recapture efforts for escaped fish and marine birds, as stated in the escape contingency plan, NatureScot must be consulted on any proposals for recapture in the interests of conservation of the qualifying species on the Sound of Gigha SPA. Use of set (gill) nets for recapture of escaped farmed stock is prohibited within the SPA. Benthic Impacts We conclude that there is no risk that solids deposition, including cumulative deposition, will result in a significant impact on the national status of any of the sensitive PMF feature that have been identified. Similarly, there is some predicted overlap between the chemical plumes in the water column and the PMF habitats outline above. This is also considered unlikely to be a significant cause for concern for the PMF features present based on the information provided. Landscape The proposal is not located within any nationally designated landscapes and therefore does not meet our thresholds for consultation. No further comments to make on the amended SLVIA. NB Full details of all consultation responses received can be viewed on the Council’s planning portal www.argyll-bute.gov.uk (D) HISTORY: None (E) PUBLICITY: ADVERT TYPE: Environmental Assessment Regs Adv (28) EXPIRY DATE: 03.12.2023 ADVERT TYPE: Regulation 20 Advert Local Application EXPIRY DATE: 24.11.2023 ADVERT TYPE: ENVASA Addendum EA Advert EXPIRY DATE: 21.07.2024 (F) REPRESENTATIONS: (i) Representations received from: Please see Appendix B for a list of the contributors 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 115
Page 116
10 Classification: OFFICIAL Ariane Burgess MSP Main reason for objecting is the appalling track record of the operator, Bakkafrost, in the same region. The company has two other salmon farms close to Gigha. Both recently completed yearly production cycles with over 80% mortality. This means that over 80% of the fish they were farming died prematurely and could not be sold as food for people. Yet the ‘production’ of those wasted salmon had detrimental impacts on the local and global environment and the local economy. Approving this application would surely conflict with Argyll and Bute Council’s Local Development Plan policy on sustainable development. In order for this application to be approved Bakkafrost should have to prove that the design of this new farm, and/or the practices they follow will at it, are substantially different for their other two farms around Gigha, where mass mortality events have resulted in enormous levels of waste. Approving this application would allow the company to expand operations close to its existing sites where it has recently struggled with sky high mortality rates including the worst mortality event in Scottish history in 2021. It is questioned whether this complies with NPF 4 policy 32 (c), which states: “Development proposals for fish farms will demonstrate that operational impacts (including…waste emissions, aquaculture litter (and odour impacts on other marine user) are acceptable and comply with the relevant regulatory framework.” Comment: This application has been assessed on its merits against the policies of the Development Plan. Councillor Douglas McFadzean I have been contacted by Gigha Community Council who have provided me with the results of an island wide consultation they undertook in relation to this proposed fish farm development. I have summarised the report findings as follows: The total number of respondents was 83 (32 for and 51 against). 39% of respondents were in favour of the proposal and 61% were against. I have also spoken with the development team behind the fish farm and they did provide some very strong reassurances re environmental protection and sourcing staff locally, ideally from Gigha itself. However, I was elected to represent the thoughts and feelings of the communities I serve and the results from the Community Council survey are pretty compelling. I would further like noted my concerns regarding the infrastructure on Gigha that could support (or not be able to support) such a development and am thinking particularly about the lack of housing on Gigha, and across my ward, which is stifling growth and population retention. There will be a negative environmental impact if this development goes ahead, although I was assured these would be minimised using new technologies. Page 116
Page 117
11 Classification: OFFICIAL On balance I believe that I must represent the community first and would agree that the time is not right for this development to go ahead for the reasons outlined above. Wild Fish Interactions Laggan and Sorn District Fishery Board (LSDFB) have serious concerns about the possibility of a new salmon farm being located in such close proximity to the salmon and sea trout fisheries that it is responsible for protecting and enhancing. The Board is of the view that it is inevitable that there will be a proliferation of the presence of sea lice in waters surrounding the site of the proposed fish farm. The LSDFB opposes the siting of any marine salmon farm in such close proximity to its jurisdiction as it wishes the waters surrounding Islay and Jura to remain as free as possible from the effects of over parasitism of sea lice on wild salmon and sea trout. The LSDFB is fundamentally concerned with ensuring wherever possible that that there is reduction of pressure on wild salmonids from sea lice, fish diseases and escaped farm fish in representing the interests of its members on the island of Islay and performing its statutory duty to protect wild migratory salmonid fish. (NB The Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board are the statutory consultee for this planning application) The proposed location of the farm is in a very exposed location where violent storms occur regularly. This factor predicates the inevitable escape of fish from the installation. The proposed installation presents the threat of escape farm-bred fish, the effects of which are deleterious. This represents a significant threat to a species of economic importance that is already under critical pressure. In rough seas it would be difficult to deal with any incident of malfunctioning equipment, moorings or failure of installation on this fish cages. A small defect would rapidly deteriorate in bad weather and a major environmental disaster could occur. Any caged fish escape from even a single unit could seriously damage or destroy any wild salmon fishery as far north as Oban or as far south as the Mull of Kintyre. This is a very high risk location indeed, and even one accidental release could catastrophic environmentally. Comment: See assessment. Farmed Fish Mortalities There is a growing body of evidence that the battery production of Atlantic salmon in fish cages on our west coast is not sustainable. In the last three years, mortalities in excess of 500 tonnes per month have been seen on some farms. The result include constant movement of lorries, sometimes dripping toxic waste, on our already stressed roads. In late summer 2021 over half a million salmon died in a farm off the Isle of Gigha operated by the current applicants. The resultant waste had all to be removed in lorries using the only ferry terminal and the only ferry, causing a Page 117
Page 118
12 Classification: OFFICIAL huge disruption to locals and tourists alike. Skips full of stinking dead salmon sat on the pier for days. The company making this application have an extremely poor track record of managing their existing sites on the east side of Gigha. Both recently completed yearly production cycles with over 80% mortality. The EIAR claims that it will be able to avoid animal welfare disasters at the proposed new farm because it has access to freshwater treatment vessels and to medicinal and non-medicinal treatments. However, these treatments were used before at Druimyean Bay and East Tarbert Bay and these did not prevent farmed fish disasters. BFS cannot guarantee that these measures will prevent the same thing happening at the new farm, and the company has made this harder to assess, as its Veterinary Health and Welfare Plan is not included in the documents in the planning portal. The Council must make sure that this plan is available and this is fit for the purpose of preventing unacceptable mortality and poor fish welfare. Comment: This application has been assessed on its merits against policies contained within the development plan and advice from consultees. The planning authority does not differentiate between applicants when assessing planning applications. Mortalities at another fish farm is not material to the determination of this application. Issues of fish health and welfare are covered by the Fish Health Inspectorate. Ornithology It is the opinion of Starling Learning ornithologists the insufficient survey has been carried out in order to full assess the impacts on cited species on the Sound of Gigha SPA. Due to flaws in the survey methods, it will not be possible for Argyll and Bute Council to make an accurate appropriate assessment. Comment: NatureScot are the Planning Authority’s expert advisors on SPAs and they have not raised this as an issue. An Appropriate Assessment is included as an Appendix to this report. Landscape and Seascape Issues The proposal would be highly detrimental to the wild character of the West coast of Gigha. The community has recently heavily invested in pathways, including pathways to the west and the proposal would be an eyesore and generated a lot of traffic in what is a relatively quiet and beautiful part of the island. The site would be visible from many of the new community built paths especially from Creag Bhan, a scenic viewpoint that currently enjoys magnificent view of the Sound of Jura. The remote landscape and seascape features of Gigha’s west coast and seascape have been recognised by Argyll and Bute Council designating large sections as “isolated coast”. The EIA recognised that the landscape effects along this pristine and quite special coastline would be more than significant. Page 118
Page 119
13 Classification: OFFICIAL No new land based is permitted on the west side of Gigha to conserve the remote and isolated landscape character and quality. The impact of a new industrial installation for fish farming here would be absolutely contrary to existing planning objectives and designations. Comment: See assessment. Navigation and Impacts on Commercial Fishing The proposal will affect local creel fishermen and will restrict access to creels in the area. The site lies directly on the main west Gigha coastal yacht navigation and has a creel fishery. Concerns that the proposal will interfere with shipping. In particular, section 4.18 of policy GEN 19 must be observed “Where evidence is inconclusive and impacts of development or use on marine resources are uncertain, reasonable efforts should be made to fill evidence gaps and decision makers should apply precaution with an overall risk based approach.” BFS also says that the negative economic impact on fish “is considered to be temporary as, at the end of the Proposed Development’s lifecycle, the infrastructure can be removed and the impact avoided”. This is clearly ridiculous. The farm would have planning permission in perpetuity. How could the area closest to the cages, and the farm’s pesticide discharges, remain a good place to fish for lobsters, crabs and prawns, which are also crustaceans. Comment: See assessment. Environmental Issues/ Wild Fish Interactions In the intervening five years since the REC Report there has been no improvement in the industry’s environmental and fish health issues; on the contrary sea lice control and premature mortalities have both deteriorated significantly. The record of sea lice control by the industry in general, and Bakkafrost in particular, is poor – despite the best intentions as detailed in planning applications. Whilst the new Gigha site is not adjacent to significant salmon or sea trout rivers, sea lice emissions from the site will inevitably add to the local cumulative numbers of sea lice with implications for transmission to passing wild salmonids. It is likely that the migration path of wild salmon smolts from rivers to the south will take them close to Gigha. We do not consider that the SEPA sea lice control framework, nor the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) can adequately address the likely impacts of sea lice from the farm on wild salmonids. Our concerns in this area are detailed in out consultation response to SEPA’s second sea lice consultation. Page 119
Page 120
14 Classification: OFFICIAL The proposed location for a farm off the west coast of Gigha is highly exposed and consequently equipment failure (no matter how robust it is), leading to escapes, is highly likely. Other countries such as Norway and the US have now come to the conclusion that fish farms in inshore waters in their own countries are environmentally unsustainable and have moved to having them on land. No further planning consents should be given for fish farms in Scottish inshore waters. Comment: SGMD have advised the Planning Authority that the EMP is fit for purpose. In addition, SEPA has advised that the sea lice exposure risk would not materially change with the proposed farm in operation. Site Location / Site Issues The area is subject to very rough weather, fast tides and is very deep. Only recently Bakkafrost have lost a barge in Loch Fyne and previously a feed barge at Portree and despite recovering it they have dumped it on the sea shore. This site poses challenges for the company and I would dispute their experience / reputation in being able to manage such a construction. The risk of something going wrong is high and I do not have the confidence they would clean up after themselves. Concerns about safety based on the difficulties with tethering in those waters. Bakkafrost are not very experienced in dealing with pens this large. The west of Gigha is very exposed to Atlantic gales and storms. The proposed fish farm location takes the full force of westerly and south westerly depressions which are the dominant weather systems for over six months of the year. We expect 90-100 days a year where the wind is Force 6 and above, and extended periods of low pressure systems can run for several months during the winter. Between Autumn and late String the sea state off the west of Gigha is frequently rough with sea swells of about 1.5m with breaking crests. The seas bounce back off the cliffs in a south westerly with a strong backwash, and there is a highly confused sea state in high winds. Working on a site in these conditions is virtually impossible, regardless of automated feeding. The land base is some 9km away and the journey to the site would be directly into the wind and highly dangerous in S to W F6 and above. It would be unsafe for any vessel attached to the site barge to try to put to sea. (The Islay ferry is cancelled in these conditions). The company plan to service the site via boats, but this is also unfeasible and they will clearly need to utilise our fragile ferry service further to service this site. There will be impacts on our road network which is not suitable for any increase in vehicles of any size. The existing east Gigha site is fallow because Bakkafrost do not have the capacity to stock it, so their expansion with supersized cages in such an exposed location appear to be entirely unnecessary for their business model. Page 120
Page 121
15 Classification: OFFICIAL A suitable attestation has not been provided to confirm that pens will be suitable for this location. Feed barges are vulnerable during bad weather. There have been incidences of feed barges sinking. National Marine Plan (NMP) policy GEN 5 Climate Change says that “marine planners and decision makers must act in the way best calculated to mitigate, and adapt to, climate change”. Comment: SGMD have not raised any objections to the location of this site. Planning Policy The proposal is contrary to policies SG LDP 9 and SG LDP Aqua 1 – aquaculture development. Consenting this proposal would contravene several of the Council’s policies, including Aqua 1, which states that “proposal for marine aquaculture development will be supported subject to there being no significant adverse effect directly, indirectly or cumulatively on the following development criteria: 1. Landscape / seascape and visual amenity; 2. Isolated coast; 4. Priority habitats / species and designated sites for nature conservation’ 7. Economic impact” This development would have significant adverse direct and indirect effects on the criteria above, as well as contributing to cumulative impacts affecting some of them. Comment: See assessment. Environmental Management Plan We do not consider that Annex 2 in the Environmental Management Plan Gigha FMA-M46 (the wild fish sea lice monitoring strategy) should be kept confidential – as this does not allow for proper consideration on what is being proposed. The fundamental flaw of EMPs is that Councils, including Argyll and Bute, have neither the capacity, not the expertise, to enforce them. Comment: NatureScot have requested that this information be kept confidential in the interests of the protection of a nationally important population of a protected species. Animal Welfare Salmon farming involves keeping the fish at high densities which leads to many, well-known problems with animal husbandry, cruelty, infections and high levels of salmon lice. Intensive farming in any setting has significant animal welfare and environmental impacts. Farmed salmon gets away with it as it is under the Page 121
Page 122
16 Classification: OFFICIAL water and not visible. We would not tolerate mammals being kept in similar intensive situations. The council should not compound the mistake of consenting the expansion of the East Tarbert Bay Farm by allowing another 3104 tonnes of fish in an area where it is manifestly not possible to humanely rear salmon. There is potential for the fish to experience severe harm during bad weather as has happened in the Faroes. Ballan wrasse do not naturally live in open water, high wave-energy sites. They are susceptible to death through shock, even when being transported, let alone when exposed to 4m+ waves in net cages. Stocking wrasse in such a situation while knowing that many will be killed by the sea conditions, would constitute unacceptable cruelty. The use of freshwater treatments would adversely affect wrasse. In common with all of Scotland’s other salmon farm operators, BFS will slaughter all the surviving wrasse every two years, when it kills the salmon, in case they transmit diseases to the next generation of farmed fish. It is unjustifiable and inhumane to use so many of these usually long-lived fish just to remove parasites, then kill them all. Comment: Fish welfare is a matter for the Fish Health Inspectorate Pollution Large quantities of dead or infected fish have been removed by road from the existing fish farms over the years. In the Faeroes, the local inhabitants have now put an embargo on any further Bakkafrost developments due to the amount of pollution created by them. It is well researched and recorded that salmon farming has environmental impacts through pollution from dead fish, waste feed and the impact of treating lice on the fish. Salmon farms dump tonnes of untreated waste into the local waters containing parasites and other pollutants which infect the local ecosystem damaging Scottish traditional fishing, as well as flooding the market with hazardous fish products, whilst providing negligible benefits to the local economy to offset the significant damage. Comment: SEPA are responsible for pollution and have not objected to this application. Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) Concern over the proposed use of sonic deterrents which have a known serious, deleterious effect on many marine mammals including cetaceans which are beginning to return to these waters. Comment: ADDs will not be used at this site and a condition is recommended preventing their use. Socio-Economic Issues Page 122
Page 123
17 Classification: OFFICIAL The economic wellbeing of local residents is extremely unlikely to be supported by any expansion given that since their introduction to the area Bakkafrost has not generated any employment opportunities of significance for locals. The proposal will adversely affect a business which relies on working, learning and relaxing. Our waters are a key part of this and any further expansion of fish farming threatens this. The fish farm will bring no benefits for our businesses or out island community through employees living and working of Gigha, sending children to the school, buying from the shop, joining in community activities and taking on important volunteer roles. The island gains almost nothing from having these farms as none of/ very few of their staff are resident here; the staff are boated in from the mainland each and every day so they don’t even bring economic benefit to our ferry. The jobs offered are not attractive when they involve dealing with so much dead fish. Neither is good that employees have to be given work elsewhere during extensive periods of fallowing which is enforced by warming oceans. Bakkafrost Scotland (BFS) makes bold claims about the economic benefits of each job on the fish farm, using economic multipliers to infer how many additional “indirect” and “induced” jobs will be created, as well as the economic benefits due to all these people spending their salaries. This is smoke and mirrors, using economic multipliers in a way that has be debunked by three of Scotland’s top economists. BFS also claims that each of the five new employees will directly generate £121,200 GVA for the Scottish economy. This is fanciful, given the record of mass mortalities at BFS’s Gigha farms. BFS also claims that “within the salmonid production sub-sector, in general, there has been an increase in the total number of jobs supported.” This is not true. The Scottish Government Marine Directorate’s Fish Farm Production Survey for 2022 shows that the number of direct employees has declined each year since 2019. Comment: See assessment. Tourism The development would have adverse impacts on tourism. As a community which is dependent upon tourism for its economic life, why should we be thinking that pollution of our waters and shores is a good thing for now or the future? The development will compromise Gigha’s new coastal path. Comment: See assessment Dark Skies Page 123
Page 124
18 Classification: OFFICIAL Gigha is classified as a Dark Skies site and the health of this site supports our local economy and the health and wellbeing of our residents. The proposed expansion will need to include essential lighting systems, including fixed white lights which are visible for 2 nautical miles which will negatively impact both our Dark Skies designation and the health of the site even more than those currently in operation. Comment: See assessment. Effects on Habitats and Species The proposal would be a hazard to sea life. The SE Islay Skerries SAC for the Harbour Seal is just across the water from Gigha’s West coast and the area is frequented by the Harbour Seals and their young. The site lies directly on the main migration route for cetaceans like dolphins and basking shark. Comment: See assessment. The Planning Authority have been advised by NatureScot on this issue. No ADDs will be used at this site. Amenity Issues The development would result in consideration marine movements necessary to service the site which is a 9km journey from the Drumyeon Bay shore base. This will result in noise and physical disturbance to quiet recreation and wildlife. It is a large industrial site boing proposed, at the bottom of a remote and spectacular cliff line fully exposed to the Atlantic. The proposal will result in light pollution. The property at The Mill, Isle of Gigha will be significantly affected by noise and light pollution from the site. We have recently spent a large amount of money restoring the old listed water mill. The proposal would also ruin business plans at the old water mill for a creative space where people can come on artists retreats due to impacts of light, noise and environmental pollution. Comment: See assessment. Impacts of Climate Change Once the water temperature is over 16C, salmon get stressed and productivity is reduced with increased prevalence of disease and sea lice. There is increasing vulnerability of cage farmed salmon down to continuing climate change induced increases in water temperatures, currently 11°C in November and 16°C in June. In recent years there has been a very rapid increase in the frequencies of micro jellies and sharp plankton blooms with high mortality levels experienced – over 20% per episode being common on many fish farms. There is an increasing rate of mortality in the fish farming cycle due to the impacts of climate change. Page 124
Page 125
19 Classification: OFFICIAL Salmon are cold water fish. The welfare disaster in Argyll’s farms is getting worse because Scotland is experiencing more frequent spells of settled weather in late summer, warming the surface waters, reducing dissolved oxygen levels and stressing the salmon. The impact is felt most strongly in the south, so it is no coincidence that the south west and Western Isles regions now have the worst fish mortality. This impact is additional to the slower increase in average annual sea temperature, which is also affecting salmon farming. Warmer conditions promote diseases and speed up the reproduction of sea lice and harmful planktonic blooms of algae and micro jellyfish. The latter can severely damage the fishes’ gills, killing them if their gills are already suppressed by disease. Comment: Officers sought the advice of the SGMD on this issue. SGMD has advised that the Marine Directorate is aware that climate change may lead to changes within the marine environment in which aquaculture operates, including trends towards milder winters. The Marine Directorate uses the best available science and evidence to inform our approach to aquaculture development. In relation to the impact of temperature change on farmed salmon production, evidence provided by Marine Directorate (from Moriarty et al. (2020)) indicates that there is a significant relationship between biomass and winter minimum air temperature, and monthly losses of farmed salmon at national or regional scales. As detailed in Moriarty et al. (2020), this work is to help assess longer term trends that can help inform the aquaculture sector of potential losses and be of practical use in farm management. The work does not support a moratorium on individual fish farm development as losses are only resolved at the level of large regions, site-level factors were not considered within this work. Therefore, it is not possible to advise if any possible changes in winter temperatures in Argyll, and specifically at the proposed West Gigha site, would result in increased farmed fish losses. Developing production strategies for farmed fish at site level for the optimal health and welfare of farmed fish is the responsibility of the site developers and operators. The Scottish Government expects mortality to be managed to the lowest possible level, and innovation and best practice in farm management to be applied appropriately to the environment in which fish farming operates. Historic Environment The development would have an adverse impact on the old mill listed building. Comment: The listed building would be over 1km from the closest fish farm pen and at this distance it is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. Other The fact that 61% of residents of Gigha, out of 83 responses, are against this proposal should outweigh every other determining factor. Page 125
Page 126
20 Classification: OFFICIAL Should permission be granted firmer requirements for the removal of disused equipment than those that are given in the application should be required. Gigha community needs help from Councillors in resisting this application because they will get little or no help from statutory consultees. SEPA have already issued a CAR licence because their remit does not cover considering performance at other farms or the cumulative impact on the island. Past experience does not suggest that NatureScot will lend much support to islanders because their remit tends to be limited to isolated Priority Marine Features and other species with no consideration of the broader impacts on communities. It would be wrong to impose this large, inappropriately sited industrial development on an island community that does not want it. The Council should respect such strong community opinion and ask the company to do likewise, by withdrawing its proposal, as another company MOWI, did when it withdrew its plans for new fish farms, after polls of the communities on Eigg and Coll showed clear majorities against them. Comment: The Planning Authority are required to determine all applications submitted. Any decision to withdraw an application would be a matter for the applicant. Planning legislation requires planning applications to be assessed against the policies of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The relevant policies of the development plan are considered in the assessment. Summary of Expressions of Support The proposal will benefit the economy of the island; This will be great for the local area, supply chains and employment. Developments such as this provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities; W & J Knox is a supplier and manufacturer of aquaculture products based in Kilbirnie. We have had a long and fruitful history with Bakkafrost Scotland and its predecessors going back 30+ years. As a company we collaborate closely on the design of new products and associated services to meet the evolving requirements of Bakkafrost’s farming operations. This was shown in 2021, when we helped them to upgrade their entire stock of containment nets to eliminate the pressure experienced from predation. We currently employ approximately 56 local people with 75% of them involved in net washing, repair and manufacture of associated aquaculture products. As a service company, we spend a lot of time visiting farms following up on past installations and new enquiries. As a result, we make a direct contribution to many local communities throughout the country all year round using local accommodation, restaurants, shops, fuel stations etc. From the Covid 19 epidemic, we have learned the importance of diversifying our economy away from an over reliance on tourism. Over recent years the aquaculture industry has been recognised to support 11,700 jobs and contribute an approximate £885 million to our national economy with an annual turnover of £1.5 billion; Page 126
Page 127
21 Classification: OFFICIAL Bakkafrost and other salmon producers operating in Scotland invest heavily in rural and coastal communities, providing not only skilled and well paid jobs but also a source of income which helps to redress the current demographic imbalance in our communities. In addition to the economic and social advantages, fish-farming supports sustainable food production. Salmon are among the most efficient farmed animals to produce as they convert feed very well. Salmon farming has a lower carbon footprint than most other farming sectors, uses less freshwater and produces more edible meat for every ton of feed used. Will be an asset to the island, especially now that the halibut site has closed. Hopefully bringing new jobs and people to the island. My role is running the local shop and Post Office and I can’t stress enough the importance of the fish farm in making our island store viable and hence safeguarding an important piece of island life. Comment: The points in support are noted. NB: Full details of all representations can be viewed on the Council’s website. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☒Yes ☐No • Infrastructure • Husbandry • Farming Production System • Consultation and GAP Analysis • Summary of Designations • Benthic Habitats • Water Column Impacts • Interactions with Predatory Species • Interactions with Wild Salmonids • Impacts on Species and Habitats of Conservation Importance • Navigation, Anchorage, Commercial Fisheries and other Non-Recreational Maritime Users (MOD) • Seascape, landscape and visual • Noise • Socio-economic, Access and Recreation • Lighting Appendices • Appendix A Figures • Appendix B Equipment Page 127
Page 128
22 Classification: OFFICIAL • Appendix C Planning Statement • Appendix D Example Production Plan • Appendix E Environmental Management Plan (including confidential annex) • Appendix F Sea Lice Management Statement • Appendix G Fish Mortality Plan • Appendix H Farm Management Statement • Appendix I Benthic Survey Report • Appendix J Hydrographic Report • Appendix K NDM Modelling Report • Appendix L Marine Modelling Report • Appendix M Nutrient Calculations • Appendix N SLVIA • Appendix O RIAA • Appendix P Waste Management Plan • Appendix Q Vessel Management Plan • Appendix R Bird Survey Report • Appendix S Sea Lice Modelling Report • Appendix T Wave Climate Assessment • Appendix U SEPA CAR Licence (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☒Yes ☐No (See Appendix) (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) A Sustainability Checklist (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) ☐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 Commercial Fisheries Impact Assessment – Local 12m and Under Fisheries dated Jan 2024 Consultation Analysis Report, West Gigha dated Feb 24. (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No (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 Page 128
Page 129
23 Classification: OFFICIAL (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 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste Productive Places NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 32 – Aquaculture Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted February 2024) Spatial and Settlement Strategy Policy 04 – Sustainable Development High Quality Places Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 19 – Scheduled Monuments Diverse and Sustainable Economy Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development Sustainable Communities Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact of Sites International and National Importance (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. Page 129
Page 130
24 Classification: OFFICIAL • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • ABC Landscape Studies (K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒No The proposal is a Schedule 2 EIA Development (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 exercise the Council’s discretion to allow respondents to appear at a discretionary hearing, the following are of significance: • How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process; • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations together with the relative size of community affected set against the relative number of representations, and their provenance. The current Local Development Plan was approved in 2024. NPF4 which was approved in 2023 contains a similar criteria based approach in relation to aquaculture applications. It is considered that the development plan is up to date. At the time of writing this application has attracted 31 objections and 14 expressions of support. Objection has been raised by the Gigha Community Council in their capacity as a statutory consultee and they have requested that Members visit the site. Given the level of interest in the application and the complexity of the issues raised, it is considered that there would be merit in holding a pre-determination Hearing to allow Members consider the site, question participants and consider the arguments on both sides in more detail. It is the view of officers that this would add value to the decision-making process. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: • Sound of Gigha Special Protection Area (SPA) • Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area (SPA) • Inner Hebrides and the Minches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Page 130
Page 131
25 Classification: OFFICIAL • Dun An Trinnse Scheduled Monument (SM3230) (O)(ii) Soils - Not applicable as this is a marine development (O)(iii) Woodland - Not applicable as this is a marine development (O)(iv) Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy - Not applicable as this is a marine development (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations This application is for the installation of a new marine fish farm for the farming of Atlantic salmon in the Sound of Jura approximately 450 m to the west of the Isle of Gigha. The site would comprise 8 x 160m circumference pens in a 2 x 4 formation along with a 600 tonne feed barge which would be located at the centre of the group on the shore side. The site would be serviced from the company’s existing shore base located on the north east side of the Isle of Gigha. This proposal is EIA Development and the determination of this application is also subject to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017. There is a requirement to examine the environmental information submitted and reach a reasoned conclusion on the significant environmental effects of the proposal. In this respect the following have been taken into account when reaching a recommendation: The EIAR (August 2023) report and appendices; The EIAR Addendum: Western Link Visual Appraisal dated 3 June 2024; The Environmental Management Plan Gigha, FMA-M46 dated September 2023; The consultation responses from Scottish Government Marine Directorate, NatureScot, SEPA, Argyll District Salmon Fishery Board, Historic Environment Scotland, Northern Lighthouse Board, Royal Yachting Association, Gigha Community Council, Argyll and Bute Environmental Health, Argyll and Bute Marine and Coastal Development Policy Officer and Argyll and Bute Environmental Health Officer; Representations received. The recommendation on this application has been guided by the conclusions of the EIAR and the proposal has been assessed against the policies of the adopted Development Plan with particular regard to the policies of NPF4 and to the policies of LDP2 as well as other material considerations and policies within the plan. (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. Page 131
Page 132
26 Classification: OFFICIAL (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan Not Applicable (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Sandra Davies Date: 5/9/24 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 5/9/24 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 132
Page 133
27 Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 23/01758/MFF Standard Time Limit Condition (as defined by Regulation) Additional Conditions 1. PP - Approved Details – EIA Development The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 4/9/23; the Environmental Impact Assessment Report dated August 2023, 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 (as amended). The developer and subsequent operator(s) shall at all times construct and operate the development hereby permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Report accompanying the application with mitigation measures adhered to in full, and shall omit no part of the operations provided for by the permission except with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Development Location A1 5/9/23 Site Plan as Proposed A1 5/9/23 Barge Mooring Drawing 5/9/23 Feed Barge Elevations and Floor Plans - 5/9/23 Pen elevations and specifications 5/9/23 Pen netting and top netting - 17/10/23 Admiralty Chart Extract A1 5/9/23 Schematic Diagram A1 5/9/23 Pen Netting Specification 01-1456 5/9/23 Grid Mooring Drawing 5/9/23 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is constructed and operated in the manner advanced in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report, upon which the environmental effects of the development have been assessed and determined to be acceptable. 2. Acoustic Deterrent Devices No Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) shall be deployed at the site hereby approved. Page 133
Page 134
28 Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. This planning application has been assessed on the basis that ADDs will not be used. The use of ADDs would be regarded as a material change to the proposal. 3. Vessel Management Plan The proposal shall be carried out strictly in adherence to the Vessel Management protocols as set out in the applicant’s Vessel Management Plan (including cetacean protocol) (Revision A1, dated December 2022 – 5. Management) or as updated and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with NatureScot. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. 4. Sea Lice Management The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Gigha Environmental Management Plan dated September 2023 version A5 and the confidential Annex 2 dated September 2023 version A2 or as updated and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority in consultation with NatureScot and SEPA. Reason: In the interests of the protection of wild salmonids. 5. Pole Mounted Top Net Specification The pole mounted top net system hereby approved shall be as noted below unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority in consultation with NatureScot: Height (m) Perimeter Pole Support Maximum height of 5m above the water surface Mesh Size (mm) Sidewall netting 75 Ceiling net panel and remaining sidewall netting 100 Colour Dark grey to black This shall be subject to review, underpinned by systematic monitoring. The Planning Authority shall be immediately notified in the event of emergence of patterns of entanglement or entrapment of marine birds. Reason: To minimise the risk to all bird species and to ensure that there are no significant effects on the qualifying interests of the relevant Special Protection Areas. 6. Wildlife Recording and Reporting The proposal shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the following criteria: (a) Operators shall monitor wildlife entanglement / entrapment in both cage and top nets. Top nets shall be monitored daily. Cage nets shall be monitored for entangled birds at least weekly, and preferable more frequently, using camera systems capable of inspecting the entire net surface and / or professional divers. Page 134
Page 135
29 Classification: OFFICIAL (b) The operator shall maintain full records of wildlife entanglement / entrapment monitoring methods and results for both cage and top nets using the standardised NatureScot proforma (https://www.nature.scot/doc/interim-technical-briefing-note-pole- mounted-top-nets-and-birds-finfish-farms) and to submit regular (typically six-monthly) returns of these records to the Planning Authority (PA), copied to NatureScot; (c) In the event of any significant entrapment or entanglement in any cage or other nets of great northern divers, gannets, gulls (any species), shags, cormorants or any other single bird species the site operator shall immediately notify both the Planning Authority and NatureScot. Significant should be interpreted as: involving three or more birds on any one day and / or a total of five or more birds in the space of any seven day period and / or repeat incidents involving one or more birds on four or more consecutive days. (d) Should and event or events be notified in accordance with the above, the Planning Authority shall agree any mitigation measures required with the applicant in consultation with NatureScot. Thereafter, the agreed measures shall be implemented within timescale to be agreed with the Planning Authority. The identified mitigation shall be retained throughout the life of the fish farm unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to ensure that there are no significant effects on the qualifying interests of the relevant Special Protection Areas. 7. Predator Control Plan The development shall be carried out in accordance with West Gigha, Isle of Gigha Predator Control Plan dated December 2022 or as updated and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. 8. Recapture of Escaped Fish - Drift Nets, Vertical Static Nets and Gill Nets There shall be no use of drift nets, vertical static nets, or gill nets to recapture escaped fish under any circumstances. In the event of any proposals for recapture NatureScot must be consulted immediately. Reason: In the interests of the conservation of the qualifying species of the Sound of Gigha Special Protection Area. 9. Biodiversity Enhancement Development shall not commence until biodiversity enhancement proposals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. These shall include details of biodiversity enhancement proposals and shall include a timetable for their implementation. Thereafter these shall be carried out in accordance with these details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority. Page 135
Page 136
30 Classification: OFFICIAL Reason: In order to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss, deliver positive biodiversity effects and strengthen nature networks in accordance with the requirements of NPF 4 Policy 3. 10. Removal of Equipment In the event that the development or any associated equipment approved by this permission ceases to be in operational use for a period exceeding three years, the equipment shall be wholly removed from the site thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that redundant development does not sterilise capacity for future development within the same water body. 11. Finished Surfaces The finished surfaces of all equipment above the water surface, excluding the feed barge, but inclusive of the surface floats and buoys associated with the development hereby permitted (excluding those required to comply with navigational requirements) shall be non-reflective and finished in a dark recessive colour in accordance with the details provided in the EIAR unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the planning authority. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 12. Lighting All lighting above the water surface and not required for safe navigation purposes should be directed downwards by shielding and be extinguished when not required for the purpose for which it is installed on the site. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity. 13. Noise The Noise Rating Level attributable to the operational activities associated with the approved fish farm shall not exceed background noise levels by more than 3dB(A) at any noise sensitive property measured and assessed in accordance with BS4142:2014. Reason: In order to protect the amenities of the area from noise nuisance. Page 136
Page 137
31 Classification: OFFICIAL ADDITIONAL NOTES TO APPLICANT • Please see the consultation response dated 31 October 2023 from the Northern Lighthouse Board (NLB) for the lighting and marking requirements for this site. Page 137
Page 138
32 Classification: OFFICIAL COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 23/01758/MFF PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. This application is for the installation of a new marine fish farm in the Sound of Jura approximately 450 m to the west of the Isle of Gigha. As noted above the site would comprise 8 x 160m circumference pens in a 2 x 4 formation along with a 600 tonne feed barge which would be located at the centre of the group on the shore side. The feed barge, which would have the appearance of a marine vessel, would have a hull length of 33 m and a hull width of 13.5m. The hull would be finished in a grey colour with the wheelhouse finished in white. The site would be serviced from the company’s existing shore base located on the north east side of the Isle of Gigha. 2. Planning Policy 2.1. The Development Plan for the determination of this planning application comprises National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), adopted February 2023, and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2, adopted February 2024. 2.2. NPF4 is based around six overarching spatial principles which the proposed development should align with. These are: • Just transition; • Conserving and recycling assets; • Local living; • Compact urban growth; • Rebalanced development; • Rural revitalisation. 2.3. Not all of these principles will be relevant to every development and in relation to the current proposal it is considered that just transition, rural revitalisation, local living and rebalanced development would apply. In terms of rural revitalisation, NPF4 supports development that helps retain and increase the population of rural areas in Scotland. 2.4. The main policy which relates to aquaculture in NPF4 is Policy 32, however, other policies within this plan are also relevant and need to be considered in the determination of this proposal. 2.5. With regard to the newly adopted LDP2, policy 28 is the main aquaculture policy, however, there are also other relevant policies which are listed above against which the proposal requires to be assessed. 2.6. The proposal benefits from general support from the Scottish Government’s National Marine Plan and from NPF4 which together recognise the contribution of the aquaculture sector to the rural economy and which seek to support sustainable economic development. The National Marine Plan and NPF4 both support marine fish farming where it can take place in environmentally sustainable locations, where it does not exceed the carrying capacity of the water body within which it is to be located, and where it does not give rise to significant adverse effects upon nature conservation, wild Page 138
Page 139
33 Classification: OFFICIAL fish, historic environment or other commercial or recreational water users. 2.7. Whilst not part of the Development Plan, the Council as a public body is required to take authorisation decisions in accordance with the National Marine Plan (NMP) as the proposal extends into the marine environment, unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise. The proposal should be consistent with general policies of the NMP including: GEN 1 – General planning principle; GEN2 – Economic benefit; GEN 3 – Social benefit; GEN 4 – Co-existence – requires consideration that may occur and the likely effect of interaction between inshore commercial fisheries (loss of fishing ground) and marine and coastal recreational activities. GEN 5 Climate change; GEN7 – Landscape/seascape; GEN 9 – Natural Heritage GEN 10 – Invasive non-native species; GEN 11 – Marine Litter; GEN 12 – Water Quality and Resource; GEN 13 – Noise. 2.8. NPF4 Policy 32 refers the National and Regional Marine Plan and notes that proposals will be supported where they comply with the relevant plans. The criteria noted within the NMP policies above are also covered within the Development Plan policies. 2.9. Beyond development plan considerations, in determining the application regard has to be had to the Council’s’ Economic Development Action Plan which identifies aquaculture as an important contributor to the local economy, and to national government economic and sectoral policy, the stated intention of which is to seek to expand the finfish sector substantially to meet internal and export demands and to help sustain direct and indirect employment in rural areas. In addition, one of the proposals contained within the Rural Growth Deal for Argyll and Bute relates to a vision for Argyll and Bute to be the leading region for innovation in marine aquaculture in Scotland, UK and globally, by underpinning sustainable, inclusive business growth through investment in world class marine science and technology. This includes a commitment to a Marine Industry Needs Assessment. This study will provide the evidence base for industry needs to inform future investment outcomes and the potential options available to deliver these outcomes. This will assist in identifying the key priorities for Rural Growth Deal investment and where this should be targeted to support sustainable growth of this sector and set out in the business case for consideration and approval by SG. 3. Assessment against Policy Criteria 3.1. NPF Policy 32 relates specifically to aquaculture. It aims to encourage, promote and facilitate aquaculture development whilst minimising adverse effects on the environment. The policy outcomes sought from this policy are: • new aquaculture development is in locations that reflect industry needs and considers environmental impacts; • producers will contribute to communities and local economies; • prosperous finfish, shellfish and seaweed sectors; Page 139
Page 140
34 Classification: OFFICIAL • migratory fish species are safeguarded. 3.2. In terms of the spatial strategy Policy 32 does not support development in the north and east coast of mainland Scotland. This is in order to safeguard migratory fish species. 3.3. Point (C) of Policy 32 requires consideration of the operational impacts of fish farms and specifically cites a number of criteria which require to be considered. These criteria are also reflected in the Council’s LDP2 which was adopted in February 2024. 3.4. The proposal requires to be assessed against all of the relevant policies contained within the development plan and not just the aquaculture specific ones. There are some parallels between the requirements of the aquaculture policies and other policies within the development plan and these will be highlighted in the assessment of this application. The application will be assessed against the criteria from LDP2 policy 28 below with other relevant policies from NPF4 and LDP2 referred to where they would apply. 4. Landscape / coastal character, seascape or visual amenity (including Isolated Coast, Wild Land and National Scenic Areas) 4.1. A Seascape, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (SLVIA) has been included within the EIAR. The proposal would introduce a new fish farm in a new location and the implementation of this development may have landscape and visual effects. The SLVIA explains that the level of effect, and whether this is significant, is determined through consideration of the ‘sensitivity’ and ‘susceptibility’ of: • The seascape, landscape element, assemblage of elements, key characteristics or character type or area under consideration bearing in mind quality and value; or • The visual receptor; and • The ‘magnitude of change’ posed by the development. Effects predicted to be of major or moderate significance are considered to be ‘significant’ in the context of the EIA Regulations. 4.2. The landscape / seascape character assessment within the SLVIA has been informed by NatureScot commissioned report no.103 – An assessment of the sensitivity and capacity of the Scottish Seascape in relation to windfarms (2005). The SLVIA describes the landscape and seascape of the proposed development as including: Scale & Openness – the landscape and seascape of the Proposed Development, and immediate coastal area around Upper Loch and Ardailly, is characterised as a large scale seascape with a medium scale landscape. On clear days views of Islay and Jura are available from the western coastline of the Isle of Gigha, forming the horizon approximately 15 km to the west; Settlement – there is sparse settlement with traditional crofting houses found in more sheltered bays and inlets and farming properties at scattered locations across the island; Pattern & foci - There is a combination of complex and intricate patterns of indented coastline fragmenting into small rocky islands and skerries, small sheltered bays around the coastline of the Isle of Gigha within the larger scale Sound of Gigha to the Page 140
Page 141
35 Classification: OFFICIAL east and Sound of Jura to the west. Foci tend to be settlements where they appear and strong landscape features such as distinctive rock formations, small rocky islands and headlands around the coastline. For example the contrast of Cnoc Loisgte adjacent to the Proposed Development, a steep rock formation which stretches into the sea with no accessible coastline south of the small rocky island of Port an Dùin and the rocky skerries around Ardailly Mill north of the Proposed Development. Elsewhere on the Isle of Gigha there are sandy beaches located at inlets / bays; Lighting – there may be limited lighting from ferries and wind farms on and around the Isle of Gigha and Kintyre, but this is generally a dark coastal area; Movement – there is limited movement between isolated properties, local roads, small boat movement (recreational boats and commercial marine vessels) and ferries to Islay and Jura. But this movement is intermittent and there are areas on the Isle of Gigha which are remote and no movement is discernible except that of wind and waves; Modification/Remoteness/Sense of Naturalness - traditional small settlements with natural elements and landscape and seascape experience are dominating features. There are existing two fin fish farms and two shellfish farms present along the coastline of the Isle of Gigha, within the sheltered bays of the east coast of the island. The wind turbines on Kintyre and smaller wind turbines on the Isle of Gigha are evident, communications mast and commercial forestry on Kintyre are visible manmade features in the landscape; and Degree of exposure – the landscape / seascape is exposed along an open coastline with views across the Sound of Jura, with a rocky foreshore and small cliffs, with indented coastlines providing sheltered areas along the coastline. 4.3. Following the submission of this planning application, it came to light that the Western Link footpath was incorrectly plotted. In response to this further supplementary environmental information was provided by the application and duly advertised in accordance with the EIA Regulations. This update established that : • Section 2 of the Western Link is approximately 4.5km long and it at times located closer to the coastline that indicated on mapped sources; • View of the fish farm would occur for a shorter length of the footpath than previously described, 0.98km as opposed to 1.2km; • The nature of views of the proposed development in combination with features such as the hill forms of Islay and Jura and the wider seascape vary depending on which stretch of the footpath the viewer is on as exhibited by Viewpoints 3 and 6; • The magnitude of change and level of effect as reported in the SLVIA for users of the Western Link would be largely unchanged. 4.4. In terms of landscape and seascape effects, the SLVIA concludes that in line with NatureScot’s guidance on aquaculture, the proposal would be well sited within the seascape and set against a backdrop of islets and rocky coastline within an open seascape which should help to ‘absorb’ the man-made structures into the seascape. It is further noted that the proposed development site possesses many of the opportunities that NatureScot identifies in relation to landscape character. The SLVIA contends that the following opportunities identified by NatureScot apply to this site: • These stretches of coastline tend to be heavily dominated by the open sea and a sense of vast distance, providing an expansive setting for structures; Page 141
Page 142
36 Classification: OFFICIAL • In these landscapes, larger structures can be more easily accommodated where they can be set against a backdrop of the sea or where a long stretch of the coastline is relatively straight; • The dominant trend of these landscapes is ‘horizontal’, made up of the horizon, low profiles of adjacent hills, promontories or distant islands which can make it easier to accommodate long, low profiled structures; • The expanse of sea may potentially absorb even very large structures. By locating large structures where there are few – if any – other reference points (except for perhaps the occasional passing ship) the structures will appear small within the larger seascape, when viewed from the land; and • Try to avoid unnecessary clutter and irregular pen sizes or patterns. An ordered pattern of pens and simple feed barge structures will more appropriately reflect the simplicity of the open sea. In terms of the landscape and seascape, the SLVIA notes that although long term in nature, the proposed development would be reversible. Taking account of the above the SLVIA concludes that within the context of the characteristics of the local coastline of a medium to large scale, the receiving landscape and seascape have the capacity to accommodate the proposed development. 4.5. In terms of visual effects, 9 viewpoints were selected to aid the assessment of this issue. The viewpoints and the reason for their selection are noted in the table below: View point number Viewpoint Name Reason for selection Distance to the Proposed Development 1 Twin Beaches Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from a beach area on the Isle of Gigha. The viewpoint is representative of views available for visitors to the beach, northeast of the Proposed Development 4.41km 2 Ardailly (residential property) Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from the front of a residential property. The viewpoint is representative of views from the path / small garden area / front elevation of the property, northeast of the proposed development. 1.36km 3 Western Link (Route 13) Public Footpath – Southeast of the Proposed Development Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from locally promoted footpath / trail as part of a network of paths on the Isle of Gigha, southeast of the Proposed Development. The viewpoint is representative of views for recreational users of the path. 0.65km 4 Local road and Core Path C096(a) (North) Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from Core Path C096(a) – 3.23km Page 142
Page 143
37 Classification: OFFICIAL Gigha Jetty – Creag Bhan – Port Mor on the local road northeast of the Proposed Development. The viewpoint is representative of views for local road user and recreational users of the core path. 5 Cnoc Nan Goghar Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from a high point on the island. This is not a core path / promoted viewpoint, but selected to illustrate the landscape and seascape context where there is potential visibility of the Proposed Development. This is a cumulative viewpoint which offers views to the east with the existing fish farm development. 4.66km 6 Western Link (Route 13) Public Footpath – East of the Proposed Development Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from locally promoted footpath / trail as part of a network of paths on the Isle of Gigha, east of the Proposed Development. The viewpoint is representative of views for recreational users of the path. 0.7km 7 Viewpoint from Coastline north of the Proposed Development (Dun An Trinnse) Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from the coastline. The viewpoint is representative of views available from the coastline. 1.39km 8 Creag Bhan (Core Path C539 – Creag Bhan viewpoint, Gigha) Viewpoint to illustrate the landscape / seascape context and views from a high point on the island included within the core path route. This is a cumulative viewpoint which offers views to the east with the existing fish farm development. 1.8km 9 On Water – West of Gigha Viewpoint to illustrate the seascape context of the Proposed Development from a water based viewpoint, west of the Proposed Development. 0.84km 4.6. In terms of visual effects, the SLVIA summarises these are follows: Page 143
Page 144
38 Classification: OFFICIAL • The siting of the proposed development is within an area which is characterised by activity, with maritime traffic, the Islay ferry route, recreational craft and commercial craft related to aquaculture development around the Isle of Gigha. • Localised screening offered by islets and skerries, and the ‘ridge’ terrain of the Isle of Gigha, help to assimilate the Proposed Development within the seascape along the coastline and screen the views of the Proposed Development from a significant proportion of the island. • The scale of the seascape, of the Sound of Jura, provides a panoramic setting for the Proposed Development, which would occupy a small proportion of the view when viewed from the coastal footpath. • The wide variety of visual experience within the landscape and seascape of the Isle of Gigha would be subject to a negligible degree of change overall, as perceived by visual receptors. • There would be no visual effects on views from residential properties on the island; and • Significant visual effects would be concentrated within a 1.39km radius, and limited to the views from the footpath network, immediate area of coastline next to the proposed development, and views from commercial and recreational boats / craft within the Sound of Jura. 4.7. With regard to visual impact the main area of concern relates to views from the locally promoted Western footpath. This footpath runs from an area to the west of the Village Hall and crosses pasture and moorland until it reaches the west coast and travels north / south along an elevated section of the west coast and then heads east to meet the classified road on the island at Tarbert Farm. People using these footpaths will be sensitive receptors who will have an increased sensitivity to the landscape and views out to sea. The web site information page for this route notes that “the route encompasses the ruins of townships from ages gone by, fabulous views to the neighbouring western islands and will provide the sense of being off grid”. The route is generally away from built development especially on the west coast and does have an isolated feel culminating in elevated, expansive and open sea views on reaching the westernmost point of the route. 4.8. NPF4 4 Policy 32 states that proposals for fish farm development will only be supported where the landscape and visual impact of the proposal has been assessed and mitigated. 4.9. The SNH document (now NatureScot) “The siting and design of aquaculture in the landscape: visual and landscape considerations.” Within this document it is noted that “from high-level viewpoints the contrast in texture between the fish farm structures and the smooth, reflective surface of the water is more obvious. The geometric shapes of lines and cages are also clearly visible.” This will be a case in place from the Western footpath where it runs parallel to west coast. This document further notes that “high- level views which are revealed as dramatic panoramas after travelling up a road or footpath to a high-pass, ridge, summit or crest of a hill will always be important views.” 4.10. There are two viewpoints within the SLVIA taken from the western footpath; VP3 which is south east of the proposed development at a distance of 0.65km and VP6 which is 0.7km to the east of the development. 4.11. In terms of cumulative effects, the SLVIA concludes that there is limited intervisibility between the Proposed Development, Druimyeon Bay and East Tarbert Bay fish farms due to topographical screening. It is further noted that there is very limited opportunity for further sequential, static cumulative views of operational fish farms with the exception of four locations, namely, Creag Bhan (VP8), Cnoc Na Gobhar (VP5), Core Page 144
Page 145
39 Classification: OFFICIAL Path C093 (VP4) and Western Link 1 Footpath. It is concluded that the predicted cumulative visual effects on views from the core path network from Creag Bhan hilltop location would be minor – moderate, adverse and non-significant at most and negligible from the road network where there are very limited available views. 4.12. Having visited the site, officers are of the view that there would be a negative visual impact to the proposed fish farm when viewed from a section of the Western Link Footpath. It is particularly the section which runs from Ardailly to Ardlamey, a section of footpath which extends to a distance 4.80km. The SLVIA has determined that visual impacts would be of a large magnitude over a section of footpath extending to 1.20km where the path is within 650m of the site. There are, however no designated landscapes in this area which would support the refusal of this application on these grounds. Taking account of the above, on balance, it is not considered that this would constitute a sustainable reason for the refusal of this application due to the short stretch of footpath involved, the low number of walkers that will use it and the lack of landscape designations. 4.13. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with aquaculture policies 32 d (i) (NPF4), Policy 28 – Supporting Sustainable Aquatic and Coastal Development, LDP2 Policy 4 – Sustainable Development and LDP2 Policy 8 – Sustainable Siting. 5. The natural, built and / or historic or archaeological sites and their settings 5.1. In terms of Marine Cultural Heritage, the EIAR confirms that there are no features of importance within the proposed location. 5.2. With regard to Scheduled Monuments, the EIAR notes that there are none immediately adjacent to the site, however, the Dun An Trinnse Scheduled Monument, has been identified within the wider area. Following consultation with Historic Environment Scotland, this was scoped out at the EIA scoping stage. In their consultation response to this application, HES have confirmed that a fish farm in this location would not generate setting impacts on the nearby monument at Dun An Trinnse (SM3230). They were also content that the risk of impacts on known marine assets would be minimal. In addition to policy 28 of LDP2 this would also accord with LDP2 policies 15 and 19. This element of the proposal would also accord with NPF 4 policies 7 and 32. 6. Designated sites, habitats and species for nature conservation (including Priority Marine Features, wild migratory salmonids and European Protected Species) 6.1. Policy 4 of NPF4 Natural Places seeks to ensure that Natural Places are protected and restored. This policy specifically refers to European sites. LDP2 polices 73 and 74 are relevant to this proposal. Policy 73 relates to development impact on habitats, species and biodiversity while policy 74 relates specifically to sites of international importance. The aquaculture specific policies within NPF4 (policy 32) and LDP2 (Policy 28) also require consideration of these issues. 6.2. The proposal is located within the Sound of Gigha Special Protection Area (SPA) which has qualifying interests of great norther diver, red-breasted merganser, eider and Slavonian grebe. As the proposal could affect this internationally important natural heritage interest NatureScot objected to the proposal unless it is carried out strictly in accordance with conditions specifying mitigation. As there is potential for likely significant effects on the SPA, Argyll and Bute Council as competent authority is required to undertake a Habitats Regulation Appraisal in the form of an Appropriate Assessment before planning permission can be granted. In terms of this SPA, NatureScot has identified a number of potential impact pathways. These are as follows: Page 145
Page 146
40 Classification: OFFICIAL • Disturbance form vessels along the proposed Vessel Transit Route; • Entanglement in sub-surface netting; • Disturbance from vessels visiting the fish farm site; • Direct displacement from the farm footprint; and • Impact from loss of prey-supporting habitat as a consequence of the farm (particularly for great norther diver). These issues are considered in detail in the Appropriate Assessment which is attached as an Appendix to this report. 6.3. The proposal also has the potential for a likely significant effect on the Ailsa Craig SPA. This SPA has a qualifying interest of northern gannet (Morus bassanus), lesser black-backed gull (Larus fuscus), and national seabird assemblage including guillemot (Uria aalge), herring gull (Larus argentatus) and kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla). The application site is located approximately 60km from the SPA and is within the mean foraging range of gannet, guillemot and kittiwake. It is therefore considered by NatureScot that the application site would have connectivity to this site. Likely significant effects are concluded for gannets due to entanglement risk from potential plunge diving behaviour into fish farm cages with pole mounted top net systems. As there is potential for likely significant effects on the SPA, Argyll and Bute Council as competent authority is required to undertake a Habitats Regulation Appraisal in the form of an Appropriate Assessment before planning permission can be granted. 6.4. Due to the vast range of these birds many fish farm planning applications are required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment relating to this issue. To assist competent authorities with this NatureScot has produced model Appropriate Assessment. This has used to inform the Argyll and Bute Council Appropriate Assessment which is contained within an Appendix of this report. The conclusion of this Appropriate Assessment is that the risk of Adverse Effects on Site Integrity can be avoided by the application of planning conditions. 6.5. The site is also located approximately 5km from the southern boundary of the Inner Hebrides and the Minches SAC, designated for harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). The proposed vessel transit route crosses the southern crosses the southern boundary of the SAC with the potential to regularly interact with cetaceans including harbour porpoise. There is also the potential for direct interactions between harbour porpoise and fish farm infrastructure e.g. entanglement in sub-surface netting. 6.6. NatureScot have advised that the applicant’s Vessel Management Plan (VMP) follows best practice principles to minimise disturbance including appropriate minimum approach distances and speed limits. These measures are considered to minimise risk of vessel collisions with cetaceans and reduce levels of direct engine / propeller noise exposure. It is further advised that the proposed routes lie within more open waters where cetaceans are less likely to be restricted in their movements, trapped or forced to come into contact with vessels. With regard to vessel traffic, there is a baseline level of 5 to 20 vessels a week resulting in a significant increase in vessel activity. However, NatureScot advise that the short transit time (20 and 50 minutes for the RIB and workboat respectively) will limit the temporal extent of marine vessel activity. As a result, it is not anticipated that vessel activity will contribute significantly to cumulative disturbance. 6.7. With regard to the risk of cetacean entanglement, high rigidity netting will be used at the pens and no anti-predator nets will be used at the site as standard. NatureScot have advised that this will limit the risk of entanglement and as such population-level Page 146
Page 147
41 Classification: OFFICIAL effects are considered unlikely. In accordance with the Predator Control Plan, observations of wildlife and interactions with the fish farm, including entanglement events, will be recorded and reported to Council and NatureScot every 6 months. 6.8. Acoustic Deterrent Devices (ADDs) have the potential to disturb cetaceans, however, the applicant has committed to not using ADDs and this application has been assessed on this basis. A condition is proposed preventing the use of ADDs. 6.9. Taking account of the above analysis, NatureScot advise that if the proposal is carried out strictly in adherence to the Vessel Management protocols as set out in the applicant’s VMP (including cetacean protocol), their conclusion is that it will no longer be likely to have a significant effect and an Appropriate Assessment will no longer be required. 6.10. NatureScot has advised that the proposal could affect a nationally important population of a protected species, details of which have been submitted in a confidential annex. It is advised that NatureScot would object to the proposal unless it is made subject to conditions so that the works are done strictly in accordance with the mitigation detailed in confidential Annex B. A condition is proposed to require the development to be carried out in accordance with this document. 6.11. NPF4, Policy 3 – Biodiversity requires developments to contribute positively to biodiversity enhancement. It is considered that the proposal would accord with this policy due to the proposed mitigation for sea lice and the commitment to undertake wild fish monitoring and adaptive management if required. In addition, the applicant is committed to undertaking further biodiversity enhancements and a pre start condition is proposed requiring these details and a timetable for their implementation. 6.12. Taking account of the above, it is considered that the proposal would also accord with LDP2 Policy 73 – Development impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity, LDP2 Policy 74 – Development Impact on sites of international importance and LDP2 Policy 4 – Sustainable Development. 7. Ecological status of coastal and transitional water bodies and biological carrying capacity (water quality & seabed impacts) 7.1. SEPA has advised that they have no objections to this proposal and have confirmed that they received an application under the Controlled Activities Regulations (CAR) in April 2023. They were satisfied that the proposed biomass was reasonable within the scope of the new regulatory framework and a permit was issued in August 2023. Subject to compliance with SEPA’s requirements it is considered that the proposal would comply with Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment. 8. Commercial and recreational activity (including other coastal/marine users (MOD)), and navigational interests (including anchorages) 8.1. With regard to commercial activity, the EIAR identifies potential impacts on non- recreational maritime users as result of the development as: • direct impact on navigational access and safety; • direct impact on commercial fishing activity resulting in displacement from fishing grounds and associated economic loss; • indirect impacts on commercial fishery stocks. Page 147
Page 148
42 Classification: OFFICIAL 8.2. Commercial maritime activities and navigation have been determined within the EIAR as being of medium sensitivity as the receptor has a moderate capacity to tolerate change without significantly altering its present character. Commercial passenger routes operate outwith the proposed development location. Fish farm secondary service vehicles are likely to cross the routes taken by the Port Askaig and Port Ellen ferries meaning there is potential for interaction, however, this would be highly transient in nature an unlikely to interact directly with passenger ferries moving through the area. In addition, secondary vessel activity would be of negligible frequency. Therefore, the overall magnitude is determined to be negligible. In light of the assessed medium sensitivity of the receptor and the negligible magnitude of the impact, the EIAR concludes that the effect of the impact on commercial maritime activities and navigation is determined to be of negligible significance and therefore not significant in relation to the EIA Regulations. 8.3. With regard to direct impact on commercial fishing activity, the EIAR notes that the installation of the proposed development would result in the reduction of the available fishing ground which would be limited to the footprint of the proposed fish farm including the mooring area. The total area over which the exclusion of fishing effort may occur is 0.74 km². This area relates to the development area rather than the smaller moorings area (0.54km²) which will be implemented through the Marine Licence for the development. This reduction in area of fishing ground available to the commercial fishing industry is likely to result in some degree of economic loss. 8.4. The fishery species fished within the wider area are identified within the EIAR as being brown crab, European lobster, King scallop and Nephrops. In relation to the fishing port of Gigha, between 2018 and 2022 these were dominated by edible crab and European lobster caught via pots and traps. The proposed development falls within the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) 40E4. The fisheries statistics for 40E4 provide a more focused baseline for commercial activity in the area of the development. Data for the 40E4 area indicates that landings between the period 2018 to 2022 were dominated by Nephrops, with a mean value of £2,652,578.46 and a mean weight of 308.38T. 8.5. The EIAR and associated Commercial Fisheries Assessment for 12m and under fisheries concludes that the worst case scenario of displacement resulted in impacts of negligible overall magnitude in relation to the 12m and under potting and trapping fishery and therefore it has been determined that the effect of displacement is non- significant in relation to fishery and therefore the effect of displacement is non- significant in relation to the EIA Regulations. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development, either in isolation of cumulatively, is unlikely to result in impacts of sufficient magnitude to result in significant effects on the commercial 12m and under potting and trapping fishing industry operating within 40E4. 8.6. The development may also have the potential to have indirect impacts on commercial fishery stocks. The EIAR notes that the release of medicinal treatment chemicals has the potential to negatively impact commercial fishery stocks within the immediate area, namely crab, lobster and Nephrops stocks. Commercial fisheries have been determined within the EIAR as being of high sensitivity as the receptor has a low capacity to tolerate change without significantly altering its present character. The EIAR considers the impacts of bath treatments namely SLICE, azemethiphos, deltamethrin and hydrogen peroxide and determines that the impact would be of a negligible impact. Therefore the effect is determined to be of minor significance and not significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. Page 148
Page 149
43 Classification: OFFICIAL 8.7. The EIAR also considered cumulative impacts in relation to commercial fishing and navigation. The proposed development is located off the west coast of Gigha and will therefore be significantly isolated from the existing fish farms on the other side of the island from a navigational point of view. All three fish farms are located outwith the transit routes for passenger ferries and commercial cargo vessels that have been identified through AIS data analysis. As a result, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is determined to be negligible. 8.8. With regard to cumulative impact on fishing activity, the EIAR confirms that the proposed development and the existing two fish farms are all outwith unique high fishing intensity areas for the four commercially important species, identified through consultation with CFA and WCRIFG. The three fish farms cover a total area of 1.55 km² (cumulative mooring area). Due to the relatively small area covered by the mooring areas of the three fish farms and the fact that fishing intensity is not uniquely high within the immediate area of the three fish farms the spatial extent of cumulative impacts is negligible. The Proposed Development has been determined to be of limited commercial importance to the local commercial fishing fleet, as such it is unlikely that the Proposed Development will contribute to cumulative impacts of displacement from fishing grounds. As a result, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is determined to be negligible. 8.9. In light of the assessed high sensitivity of the receptor and negligible magnitude of the cumulative impact, the effect of the cumulative impact is determined to be of minor significance and therefore not significant in relation to the EIA Regulations. 8.10. With regard to indirect impacts on commercial fishery stocks discharge quantities of sea lice medicines for the proposed development and the existing two fish farms are enforced through the SEPA CAR licence. Both of the existing fish farms (Druimyeon Bay and East Tarbert Bay) already have current CAR licences, that outline the permitted chemical quantities consented for discharge to ensure compliance with SEPA’s requirements. The CAR licence for the Proposed Development also outlines permitted quantities, based on the marine modelling conducted by the applicant. As a result, the magnitude of the cumulative impact is determined to be negligible. In light of the assessed high sensitivity of the receptor and negligible magnitude of the cumulative impact, the effect of the cumulative impact is determined to be of minor significance and therefore not significant in relation to the EIA Regulations. 8.11. With regard to anchorages, the EIAR has undertaken a review of designated anchorages and areas where harbour authorities may request a vessel to anchor. This has identified two specific anchorage locations on the east coast of Gigha. Both of these lie sufficiently outwith the influence of the proposed fish farm. Following consultation with the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) the EIAR identified two further anchorages on the west coast of Gigha; one to the north west within West Tarbert Bay and one to the southwest within Cuddyport Bay. The RYA advised that both of these anchorages are used to a lesser extent that those on the east coast and through consultation it was determined that the development would be sufficiently outwith the two anchorages to ensure no interaction with anchored vessels. It was also concluded that the location of the development would result in negligible interaction with vessels transiting to either of the two west coast anchorages. The RYA concluded that the Proposed Development would not result in significant effects on recreational marine vessels within the local area. 8.12. Following the submission of this application, and in response to objection from Clyde Fishermen’s Association (CFA), the applicant has engaged in further dialogue with this organisation. A virtual meeting was held in February 2024 where the CFA and two of Page 149
Page 150
44 Classification: OFFICIAL their member fishers highlighted that, if possible, they would like to see a reduction in the spatial extent of the mooring area as they were of the opinion that this would allow continued access to fishing grounds. The applicant has advised that while it would not be possible to change the red line boundary of the proposal, as this would require the submission of a fresh planning application, Bakkafrost Scotland Ltd. are willing to reduce the spatial extent of the mooring area that will be licenced through the Scottish Government Marine Directorate. Following the meeting, the CFA confirmed that their Members were of the opinion that the proposal represented a viable compromise by both parties. The applicant has therefore agreed to reduce the mooring area by 27% through the Marine Licence application. 8.13. Taking account of the above, it is considered that proposal would accord with NPF4 policy 32 and LDP2 Policy 28 where they refer to impacts on other marine users. 9. Amenity, arising from operational effects (waste, noise, light and odour) 9.1. With regard to noise, the development is located along a section of coastline which is relatively devoid of human habitation, with only a few properties to the north of the site having been identified. These are 1.33km, 1.47km and 1.59km when measured in a straight line and would have no direct line of site with the development due to the rising topography of the western coastline of Gigha. Other potential receptors for noise would be walkers on the western link footpath. The EIAR has determined that the identified residential dwellings to be of high sensitivity as the receptor has a low ability to absorb change without fundamentally altering its present character. The walkers on the western link footpath have been determined to be of medium sensitivity as the receptor has a moderate capacity to absorb change without significantly altering its present character. 9.2. There is the potential for the proposed development have adverse amenity effects on Noise Sensitive Receptors (NSRs) through the operational activities of the fish farm. The main sources of sound would be from the generators on the feed barge but there would also be potential for sound to be generated from marine vessel activity. 9.3. The EIAR identifies that there are a number of embedded mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the design and operation of the proposed development. These include development location, generator positioning, sound insulation, feed blower positioning, standard working house and an automatic timer system. It should be noted that although standard working hours are from 07:00 to 20:00 over 7 days, some operations may be required outside standard working hours for reasons of fish health and welfare. Also, during certain periods of the year equipment integral to the production cycle will be required to run overnight. This primarily includes underwater lighting and aeriation systems. 9.4. The primary noise generating aspects of the development have been identified in the EIAR and these include the feed barge generators, the feed selectors and blowers and marine vessels associated with the development. 9.5. Sound emitted from the generators and feed equipment will be sufficiently reduced by the embedded design and operational mitigation. Feeding operations will take place during normal operating hours. The EIAR therefore determines that sound emitted from these operations will be of a high frequency and medium duration. With regard to vessels associated with the fish farm, the primary service vehicles will be transient in nature, as the area of audibility will move as the vessel moves from the shore base to the site. These primary vessels will only make a single return journey per day, under normal operating conditions, and, as such, the frequency of the potential impact will be Page 150
Page 151
45 Classification: OFFICIAL negligible and of short duration. Moreover, there will a degree of marine vessel sound associated with the baseline condition, with commercial and recreational vessels known to use the waters around the Isle of Gigha. 9.6. Taking account of the above, with regard to noise, the EIAR has determined that the overall magnitude of the identified impact has been sufficiently reduced to negligible levels, therefore the subsequent effects are not significant. 9.7. The EIAR also considers the impact of lighting associated with the development. Sensitive receptors with regard to lighting have been identified as being residential properties (medium sensitivity) particularly at Ardailly and Ardminish and the Gigha Dark Sky Discovery Site at Port Mor (high sensitivity). Dark Skies Gigha, a location at the northern extreme of the island (Port Mor) has been classified as a Milky Way class Dark Sky Discovery Site by the UK Dark Sky Discovery Partnership. The Dark Sky Discovery Site is 5.65 km northeast of the Proposed Development with no direct line of sight. 9.8. Potential impacts were determined to be obtrusive light impacts as a result of the operation of the proposed development. Obtrusive lighting includes; light spill, glare, and sky glow. Due to embedded mitigation measures which includes Northern Lighthouse Board requirements (design), lighting installations (design), underwater lighting (design), standard working hours (operational) and best practice operational features (operational) the overall magnitude of potential obtrusive light generation and propagation was determined to be negligible. The EIAR notes that design mitigation (such as best practice lighting installation) and operational mitigation (such as best practice lighting procedures including extinguishing all external lighting outwith work hours, ensuring only active task areas are illuminated, and ensuring that standard working hours predominately fall within daylight and normal working hours) will ensure impacts are sufficiently avoided and reduced. Cumulative impacts were also determined to be negligible, as the two existing farms to the northeast of the Isle of Gigha currently implement the same embedded mitigation as is intended for the proposed development. 9.9. As a result, the EIAR determines that, in light of the medium and high sensitivity of the identified receptors and the negligible overall magnitude of the impact, the effect of obtrusive lighting from the operation of the proposed development is negligible (residential properties) and minor (Gigha Dark Sky Discovery Site), respectively. Therefore, the effect is determined to be not significant in relation to the EIA Regulations. 9.10. With regard to waste, the EIAR advises that a Waste Management Plan will be in place for the site and this has been attached as an Appendix to the EIAR. In addition, it is advised that the development will be kept in a neat and tidy condition and any rubbish found on the adjacent shoreline will be collected on a regular basis to minimise the impacts of marine litter. This is considered to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 12 and LDP2 Policy 63. 9.11. Given the location of the proposed development sufficiently far away from sensitive receptors, it is not considered that there would be any adverse effects from odour. 9.12. It is considered that the impacts on amenity would be acceptable and would not conflict with LDP2 Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development, NPF 4 Policy 32 or LDP2 Policy 28. Page 151
Page 152
46 Classification: OFFICIAL 10. Net economic impact, including local community socio-economic benefits such as employment, associated business and supply chain opportunities 10.1. In their supporting statement applicant advises that they are engaged in all stages of the value chain, from freshwater and marine farming, to processing, sales and marketing, ensuring total value chain integrity, full traceability and Scottish provenance. Bakkafrost Scotland Ltd. rears Atlantic salmon at both freshwater and marine sites across the west coast of Scotland and the Western Isles and produced over 35,000 T (gutted weight) of Atlantic salmon in 2020. They employ more than 540 staff across remote and rural communities and engage with many suppliers and contractors throughout the supply chain. Over 60 % of production is exported to 26 countries around the world, with a key focus on North America and the Far East. Bakkafrost was the recent recipient of two Scotland Food & Drink Excellence Awards with the Native Hebridean Smoked Scottish Salmon product, winning both the ‘Product of the Year’ award and the ‘Artisan Product of the Year’ at the Scottish Food and Drink Awards 2022. 10.2. The applicant advises that aquaculture continues to contribute significantly to global food production, with aquaculture currently accounting for 52 % of global seafood consumption. Bakkafrost is focused on sustainable business development following international demand for Scottish salmon, the UK’s largest food export. They advise they are committed to Scottish provenance and take great pride in producing quality Scottish salmon, whilst being committed to the environmental, cultural, economic growth, and sustainability of rural Scotland. It is noted that the company is the first salmon producer in Europe to be awarded 4-star Best Aquaculture Practice (BAP), with certification covering feed production, freshwater, marine, harvesting and processing operations. 10.3. The EIAR contains a chapter on the socio-economic contribution of the proposal. This concludes that the proposed development has the potential to generate positive social and economic impacts by means of direct economic impact, indirect economic impact (supply chain) impact and induced economic impact. 10.4. The assessment of potential socio-economic impacts was centred around the determination of Gross Value Added of the proposed development with GVA being defined as an economic productivity metric that measures the contribution of a company to an economy, producer, sector or region. GVA was then split into three categories direct (specific to the proposed development), indirect (the aquaculture supply chain and induced (the wider Scottish economy). 10.5. With regard to direct GVA, it was estimated that the proposed development would contribute £606,000.00 per year to the wider Scottish economy, with the direct employment of a minimum of five full time staff. The overall magnitude of the impact was determined to be medium and the effect was determined to be of moderate positive significance and therefore significant in relation to the EIA Regulations. 10.6. The indirect GVA contribution to the Scottish economy was estimated to be £327,917.02 per year through aquaculture supply chain. Initial capital expenditure for the development was estimated to be £8,070,400.00. The overall magnitude of impact was determined to be medium. As a result, the effect was determined to be of moderate positive significance and therefore significant in terms of the EIA Regulations. 10.7. The development was estimated to contribute £75,773.91 per year to the Scottish economy through induced economic activity. These impacts relate to the spending of Page 152
Page 153
47 Classification: OFFICIAL wages and salaries and through induced employment within the wider economy through increased demand as a result of economic activity. The overall magnitude of the impact was determine to be low. As a result, the effect was determined to be of minor positive and not significant in relation to EIA Regulations. 10.8. It has therefore been demonstrated that the proposed development would have a positive economic impact in accordance with NPF4 Policy 25 – Community wealth Building and NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural development which are supportive of rural economic activity. The proposal would also accord with LDP2 Policy 28, the aquaculture specific policy which requires the economic contribution of aquaculture proposals to be assessed. 11. Potential benefits of sustainable site management proposals, which seek to mitigate or reduce environmental risk from fish farming operations, including escapes, disease and sea lice management and manage risk from fish farming operations, including escapes, disease and sea lice management or manage risk through adaptive management in response to environmental monitoring 11.1. The applicant has submitted of supporting documents which have been attached as appendices to the EIAR. Of particular relevance are the Environmental Management Plan, Sea Lice Management Statement, Fish Mortality Plan, Waste Management Plan, Fish Mortality Plan, Waste Management Plan and Vessel Management Plan. These all contain details on how the development will be operated and include details of mitigation and monitoring where appropriate. It is considered that the proposal would comply with this element of LDP2 Policy 28. 12. Proposed operational measures which can mitigate or minimise the level of risk of potential impacts (including on other aquatic or coastal interests) 12.1. A number of documents have been submitted in support of the application which relate to the operation of the site and adherence to these have been attached as conditions. NPF4 Policy 1 aims to encourage, promote and facilitate development that addresses the global climate and nature crises while NPF 4 Policy 2 is supportive of developments which have been sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. 12.2. The EIAR notes that marine aquaculture is widely seen as possible solution to global food shortages that are predicted to increase as a result of climate change. Wild Atlantic salmon is not a sustainable food source. However, the industry has also been vulnerable to the effects of temperature rises caused by climate change as evidenced by recent fish health challenges. Along with evolving fish health management practices, it is now considered best practice to locate fish farms in more energetic sites. This, however, leaves the farms more vulnerable to the effects of storm events which are increasing as a result of climate change. This issue has been raised by objectors and consultees, however, the Scottish Government Marine Directorate are satisfied with the details of the equipment provided by the applicant. Equipment attestations and specifications have also been provided by the manufacturer which state that the equipment has been designed in accordance with the Norwegian standard to withstand the environmental conditions at the development location. Page 153
Page 154
48 Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX B – LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS OBJECTION FROM MSP 1. Ariane Burgess MSP Per Highlands And Islands Scottish Green Party The Scottish Parliament OBJECTION FROM COUNCILLOR 2. Douglas McFadzean Greenside Bowmore Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute OBJECTIONS 3. Amy Wilson North Ardminish Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA 4. Angus McLeod Ardailly Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA 5. Brian Wallace 15 Mortonhall Park way Edinburgh EH17 8BW 6. Casey-Jo Zammit 2 Burnside Cottages Isle Of Gigha Argyll & Bute PA41 7AD 7. Dennis Archer Gallanach Road Oban 8. Eleanor Logan South Lodge Achamore Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD 9. Ewan Kennedy Kinloch Degnish Road Kilmelford PA34 4XD 10. Fabian Feary 2 Mansecroft Clachan Tarbert Argyll And Bute 11. Fiona Middleton Ardimersay House Kildalton Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute 12. Friends Of The Sound Of Jura No Address Provided 13. Gabriel Waksman The Mill Isle Of Gigha PA41 7AA 14. George Middleton Ardimersay House Kildalton Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute 15. Graham White No 2 Keills Cottages Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD 16. Ian William Campbell 1 Distillery Cottages Lagavulin Isle Of Islay Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute 17. Iona Middleton Ardimersay House Kildalton Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute 18. JK Wilson No Address Given 19. John Aitchison No Address Given 20. JP Waksman The Mill Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA 21. Julie Wilson Dark Skies Gigha 22. Julie Wilson North Ardminish Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA 23. Keith Wilson Heather Lea Ardminish Isle Of Gigha Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute 24. Laggan And Sorn District Salmon Fishery Board Clerk To Laggan & Sorn District Salmon Fishery Board Per Messrs Walker & Sharpe Solicitors 37 George Street 25. Marion Stevenson Cuddyport Gigha PA41 7AD 26. Marion Wilson Heather Lea Ardminish Isle of Gigha Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute 27. Rachel Mulrenan Per Wildfish 19 Windsor Place Edinburgh EH15 2AJ 28. Stephen Rogers Carraig Mhor Emerivale Port Ellen Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute 29. The Coastal Communities Network, Scotland Per Alan Munro 5 Rose Street Edinburgh EH2 2PR 30. Tony Philpin Tighcruinn Isle Of Gigha Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute 31. Viv Oliver Tighnavinish Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA SUPPORT 1. Audrey Dickie Gigulum Cottage Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD Page 154
Page 155
49 Classification: OFFICIAL 2. David Peach 36 F Shore Street Inverness IV1 1NF 3. Graham Smith 80 Bowfield Road West Kilbride North KA23 9JZ 4. Heather MacLean 102 Herries Road Glasgow Glasgow G41 4AN 5. Iain Macleod Scalpay Factory Bayhead Isle of Scalpay HS4 3XY 6. Inverlussa Marine Services By Craignure Isle Of Mull Argyll PA65 6BD 7. Jacqueline Cochrane North Drumachro Isle Of Gigha Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute 8. Joseph Teale Post Office House Ardminish Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute 9. Keith Helm Gigulum Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD 10. Malcolm Henderson North Drumachro Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD 11. Nathan Breeze 2a Reservoir Road Whaley Bridge SK23 7BL 12. Rhuaraidh Edwards W & J Knox Ltd Mill Road Kilbirnie KA25 7DZ 13. Scott Slawinski 34 newton park inverness iv5 7qb 14. William McSporran 10 Ardminish Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AB Page 155
Page 156
50 Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX C – HABITATS REGULATIONS ‘APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT’ HABITAT DIRECTIVE 92-43-EEC THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS AND C.) REGULATIONS 1994 AS AMENDED The Sound of Gigha Special Protection Area Purpose of the designation The Habitats Directive aims to conserve biodiversity by maintaining or restoring Annex I Habitats or Annex II species to favourable conservation status. The Sound of Gigha Special Protection Area (SPA) comprised an area of 363.27 square kilometres. The site lies around the island of Gigha and extends northwards to Knapdale, Loch Caolisport and West Loch Tarbert and southwards from Gigha to Machrihanish. The qualifying species of the SPA are: Great northern diver (non-breeding): non-breeding season is October to mid-May (inclusive Common eider (non-breeding) non-breeding season is September to mid-April, with moult taking place for eider between mid-June to October. Red-breasted merganser (non-breeding); Non-breeding season is mid-August to March (inclusive). Slavonan grebe (non-breeding): Non-breeding season is mid-September to April (inclusive). NatureScot have provided site reference populations in the Sound of Gigha SPA (5- year mean from 2004/05 – 2007/2008) as follows: 510 individual great norther diver; 37 individual Slavonian grebe; 1300 individual common eider; 120 individual red-breasted merganser. Consequences of the designation In circumstances where European Protected Species could be subject to significant effects as a consequence of development proposals, the competent authority, in considering whether development should be consented, is required to undertake an ‘appropriate assessment’ to inform its decision-making process, on the basis that where unacceptable effects are identified, or in cases of ‘reasonable scientific doubt’, then permission ought not to be granted. An ‘appropriate assessment’ is required to be undertaken in cases where any plan or project which: (a) Either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site designated for nature conservation; and (b) Is not directly connected with the management of the site. Page 156
Page 157
51 Classification: OFFICIAL Characteristics of the development The proposal is for the equipment and operation of a marine fish farm in coastal waters with farmed fish to be contained in nets supported from flotation rings secured to a mooring grid anchored to the sea bed. NatureScot have advised on the following impact pathways for marine birds in relation to this proposed development. These are: 1. Entanglement or entrapment in top, cage or antipredator netting or in any nets deployed to recapture stock in event of escape; 2. Disturbance in the vicinity of the farm and / or associated vessels; 3. Direct displacement from the farm footprint; and 4. Loss of or damage to prey-supporting habitats in vicinity of the farm and / or as a consequence of export or organic materials or chemicals from the farm site. NatureScot advise of potential likely significant effects (LSE) for all qualifying features of the Sound of Gigha SPA with respect to all of the above impact pathways. Assessment The assessment considers the impact of the proposals on the qualifying species within the designated area and has regard to the applicant’s submitted information in support of the planning application, and to consultation advice provided by NatureScot. NatureScot has raised concerns about the submitted proposal on the basis that the operation of the farm, as envisaged by the applicants, is in their view likely to have significant effects on the designated species of interest within the Sound of Gigha Special Protection Area. The impact of the proposal has been considered against the potential impact pathways noted above and considered in more detail below: Impact pathway 1 – Entanglement and diving depths There is the potential for mortality of the qualifying bird species through entanglement with net. The EIAR contains an appraisal to the entanglement risk to the qualifying species based on their diving depths. NatureScot have advised that as the proposal has a minimal mooring area of 16 metres, they do not expect that eider, red-breasted merganser and Slavonian grebe would forage at the area. This has been confirmed by the survey data. Therefore, the main concern is the potential entanglement of the great northern diver feature of the SPA. For great-northern diver, it is expected that the setup of the subsurface netting (high rigidity material and sinker tube tensioning system) will reduce the potential for sub-surface entrapment and entanglement, which should be sufficient to prevent risk to Conservation Objective (CO) 2a: populations of the qualifying features are viable components of the site. The Applicant has committed to reporting requirements for any entanglement incidents. However, it is unclear whether this includes actively looking out for entanglement to diving species which might be caught in the sub-surface netting. This is a particular concern for great-northern diver. If this is not part of the daily inspection, then we recommend that diving inspections are implemented at least weekly (to record any incident to diving marine birds). Page 157
Page 158
52 Classification: OFFICIAL Another alternative the NatureScot have suggested would be the use of underwater cameras. The presence of great-northern diver is in relatively low numbers near the proposed farm site; however, NatureScot advise that it must be ensured that a significant number of birds do not become entrapped so that no Adverse Effects on Site Integrity can be concluded. The EIAR also includes a detailed appraisal of entanglement risks to other species (considering both their diving depths and the entanglement rates at the two other existing fish farms in Gigha. This includes an appraisal done for cormorant, shag, common guillemot, black guillemot, and gull species. No incidents of entanglement at the two other fish farms have been reported. Impact Pathway 2: Disturbance The Applicant has addressed our concerns regarding disturbance to all qualifying features of the SPA (which exhibit sensitivity to disturbance) and has included an appraisal to consider if these species would favour the area of the proposed fish farm or areas in the vicinity of the proposed Vessel Transit Route. The survey results show that all qualifying features of the SPAs were detected during the Vantage Point (VP) surveys along the Vessel Transit Route (VTR), although Slavonian grebes were present in very low numbers. At the vicinity of the site of proposed fish farm, only great-northern diver was present in significant numbers. Therefore, for eider, red-breasted merganser and Slavonian grebe, the main risk is only due to disturbance with associated vessels along the VTR (impact pathway 2). For Slavonian grebe, very low numbers were recorded in the surveys. This means that the vessel disturbance will be relatively minor and will not undermine CO2b for this qualifying feature (the distributions of the qualifying features throughout the site are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species). Thus, NatureScot conclude no AESI for Slavonian grebe. For eider and red-breasted merganser, the numbers recorded along the traffic routes have peak counts of 2% of SPA population (26 birds) for eider, and 4% of SPA population (5 birds) for red-breasted merganser . For eider, the VTR cuts through two zones with good foraging habitat for this species (East Tarbert Bay and Palm Tree Beach). It is expected that birds would either be temporarily displaced away from the passing boats and would exhibit habituation to increased marine vessel activity over time. For red-breasted merganser, the larger concentrations of birds within the SPA are outwith the VTR, so disturbance is less of a concern for this qualifying feature. A more significant concern is during the sensitive flightless moult period for eider (between July and September). However with the mitigation measures in the Vessel Management Plan it is expected that disturbance is not considered to be sufficient to undermine CO2b through long term or irreversible alteration of the distribution of the qualifying features, thus we conclude no AESI for eider and red-breasted merganser. Page 158
Page 159
53 Classification: OFFICIAL Good numbers of great northern diver were detected near the farm site, as well as along the VTR. In the VTR, regular sightings of groups of great northern diver up to six individuals have been recorded (representing 1% of SPA population), and one group of 15 birds recorded (representing 3% of SPA population). Along the entire extent of VTR, up to 27 birds could be estimated from the survey results, representing around 5% of SPA population. Near the proposed farm site, peak counts of up to 3 birds represent less than 1% of the SPA population. The greatest concern comes from disturbance along the VTR. Considering a disturbance zone of 1000m from VTR. It is clear that increased vessel activity along the VTR would result in disturbance to a considerable area used by great northern diver. However, this area is small in comparison to total foraging area available in the SPA. There is also evidence from the bird surveys that great northern diver habituates to increased vessel activity, such as passing RIB boats at high speed within 100 meters. Due to the mitigation measures stated in the Vessel Management Plan, and the nature of vessel activity (one return journey per day under normal conditions), disturbance to great northern diver should not be sufficient to undermine CO2b (the distributions of the qualifying features throughout the site are maintained by avoiding significant disturbance of the species). The installation of the mooring area (scheduled for the period May-August) would avoid the sensitive moulting period for great northern diver (which occurs between Feb and April). Installation of the fish pens and moorings is anticipated to take 28-35 days to complete. The installation of the Proposed Development is proposed between May and August (inclusive) to avoid the non-breeding winter season of the qualifying features of the Sound of Gigha SPA. However, this will coincide with the flightless moult period for red-breasted merganser (mid-July to late Sept) and eider (July to mid Sept), when both qualifying features are likely to have an increased sensitivity to disturbance during this period. It is stated in the EIA (page 336) that for both species, the potential for impacts is only predicted during the nonbreeding season (outwith the moulting period) when they are on the water of the SPA, as both species breed on the coast. These species are unlikely to be present near the mooring area during moulting, as almost no observations of these species were made near the mooring area during the winter surveys, and it is considered unlikely that eider and red-breasted merganser utilisation would markedly change during the moulting period. During the installation period, up to three marine vessels will frequently be onsite, however, these vessels will be moving at low speeds in association with the defined 0.74 km2 mooring area. This can result in disturbance to some marine birds, however during this time the only qualifying feature likely to be present in the area will be foraging gannets from Ailsa Craig SPA and this species is unlikely to be significantly affected by vessel and construction activity. Impact Pathway 3 – Direct displacement from the farm footprint The Proposal will result in a direct reduction in the sea surface area available to the SPA qualifying features. However, this concern only relates to great-northern diver, as the other qualifying features have not been regularly recorded at the site of proposed fish farm. The Page 159
Page 160
54 Classification: OFFICIAL total surface area of the Proposed Development is anticipated to be 0.017 km2. The presence of structures within the marine environment may result in birds being displaced from the development location. The baseline ornithology survey identified the presence of very low numbers, 1 to 3 birds, in association with the mooring area. However, a total of 79 observations of great northern diver were made across the survey period; as such, great northern diver does make use of the marine environment encompassed by and surrounding the mooring area. The survey findings indicate that the majority of observations were outwith the spatial extent of the mooring area. As a result of the ability of great northern diver to utilise both the pelagic and benthic zones for foraging, they are not limited by water column depth and therefore may make use of a wider range of foraging habitats, particularly pelagic habitats where diving capabilities are less of a constraint. This ecological trait means that birds may not be constrained by reduced availability of a small area of foraging habitat. Furthermore, based on the evidence that their mean diving depth is between 4 to 10 m and that foraging activity is predominantly associated with water depths of 19 m or less, the mooring area is unlikely to represent a primary foraging area as the mean depth is 41.46 m. Therefore, displacement to great-northern diver is not sufficient to undermine CO2c of the SPA (the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained). Impact pathway 4 – Loss of or damage to prey-supporting habitats There is evidence to suggest that impact to prey-supporting habitats is going to be negligible. The two existing fish farms in the area (Druimyeon Bay and East Tarbert Bay) underwent SEPA benthic auditing in late 2021. This audit process identified that both farms are currently complying with the Mixing Zone threshold and have a negligible impact on the receiving benthic environment. The total area of the Mixing Zones for the three farms is 0.45 km2 which is 0.12 % of the total available habitat within the SPA boundary. NatureScot consider that the predicted cumulative solid deposition levels from the Proposal in combination with the two existing fish farms around Gigha are very low and not at a level that would give rise to any concerns around possible degradation of the habitats that would be used by the qualifying features of the SPA. The same advice also concluded that the chemical residue plumes from the proposed West of Gigha site will not pose a risk to any of the habitats or benthic invertebrates. Therefore, it is advised that this pressure is not sufficient to undermine CO2c (the supporting habitats and processes relevant to qualifying features and their prey/food resources are maintained). Cumulative Impacts Disturbance Regarding vessel traffic, NatureScot note the statement that most of the VTR has a baseline level of 5-20 vessel per week. Adding one return trip per day (for the RIB and workboat) will Page 160
Page 161
55 Classification: OFFICIAL represent an additional 14 vessel movements per week, meaning a significant increase in vessel activity. However, we agree that the relatively short transit time (20 and 50 minutes for the RIB and workboat, respectively) will limit the temporal extent of marine vessel activity, and as a result, it is not anticipated that vessel activity will contribute significantly to cumulative disturbance, in what to the qualifying features recorded along the VTR (eider, red breasted merganser and great northern diver). Displacement The Proposal will be located a significant distance from the two other existing marine salmon farms to the NE of the Isle of Gigha, with East Tarbert Bay and Druimyeon Bay located 9.03 km and 10.25 km, by sea, from the current proposed site. The Proposal will also be located in a more exposed, offshore location, with significant water depth and current velocity. Therefore, the marine environment of the proposed fish farm is significantly different to the two existing marine salmon farms, which are located in more sheltered, lower energy environments. The EIA refers that this means “neither additive nor associated cumulative effects on IEFs which favour shallower, more sheltered environments are unlikely to occur” (see page 382 of EIA). While this is true for eider and red-breasted merganser (which occur in significant numbers to the east of Gigha but not to the west), this is not true for great- northern diver (which occur in both sides of Gigha, in good numbers). Recommended mitigation to be secured by planning condition • Operator to monitor wildlife entanglement/entrapment in both cage and top nets. Top nets should be monitored daily. Cage nets should be monitored for entangled birds at least weekly, and preferably more frequently, using camera systems capable of inspecting the entire net surface and/or professional divers. • Operator to maintain full records of wildlife entanglement/entrapment monitoring methods and results for both cage and top nets using the standardised NatureScot proforma (https://www.nature.scot/doc/interim-technical-briefing-note-pole-mounted- top-nets-and-birds-finfish-farms) and to submit regular (typically six-monthly) returns of these records to the Planning Authority (PA), copied to NatureScot; • Immediate notification by the site operator to both the PA and NatureScot in event of any significant entrapment or entanglement in any cage or other nets of great northern divers, gannets, gulls (any species), shags, cormorants, or any other single bird species. Significant should be interpreted as: involving three or more birds on any one day and/or a total of five or more birds in the space of any seven-day period and/or repeat incidents involving one or more birds on four or more consecutive days); • Should an event or events be notified in accordance with the above conditions, the PA must consult with NatureScot, and the applicant is to agree any mitigation measures required. Any such mitigation measures are to be implemented within a timescale determined by the PA and to be retained throughout the life of the fish farm unless agreed otherwise in writing by the PA. • Strict adherence to the Vessel Management protocols as set out in the applicant’s Vessel Management Plan (Revision A1, dated December 2022 – 5. Management) Page 161
Page 162
56 Classification: OFFICIAL Conclusion The potential impacts of the development in relation to the qualifying species within the SPA designation have been considered in the light of the above and it has been concluded that with identified mitigation measures in place the impacts arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of the development as proposed, in combination with the operation of other farms nearby will not with identified mitigation in place have a significant impact upon qualifying interests, and accordingly there is no reason to withhold permission on European nature conservation grounds. Appropriate Assessment informed by NatureScot for the purposes of Argyll and Bute Council as competent authority in assessing planning application 23/01758/MFF. APPRAISAL IN RELATION TO REGULATION 48 OF THE CONSERVATION (NATURAL HABITATS, &C.) REGULATIONS 1994 AS AMENDED (HABITATS REGULATIONS APPRAISAL) EUROPEAN SITE DETAILS Relevant European site qualifying interest: Name of European site(s) potentially affected: Conservation Objectives for qualifying interests: The Conservation Objectives for each site can be accessed via SiteLink. naturescot sitelink - Google Search STAGE 1: WHAT IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT Use of pole-mounted top net systems with ceiling mesh dimensions of 100mm or less at existing finfish aquaculture sites in Scotland. STAGE 2: IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH OR NECESSARY TO SITE MANAGEMENT FOR NATURE CONSERVATION? No Page 162
Page 163
57 Classification: OFFICIAL STAGE 3: IS THE PLAN OR PROJECT (EITHER ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH OTHER PLANS OR PROJECTS) LIKELY TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE SITE? Breeding gannets have a mean foraging range of 120.4km (±50.0km) and a mean maximum foraging range if 315.2km (±194.2km). Consequently, there is potential connectivity between gannets from one or more of the SPAs listed above and all Scottish marine waters suitable for finfish aquaculture. There is potential for Likely Significant Effect (LSE) arising from incidental entanglement or entrapment of gannets at finfish farms deploying pole-mounted top nets. STAGE 4: APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SITE IN VIEW OF ITS CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES Gannets forage opportunistically on pelagic fish shoals by plunge diving in to them from the air and pursuing fish underwater. They may be attracted over substantial distances by presence of other gannets, such that large numbers of birds can quickly gather over a fish shoal. There are several known instances of numbers of gannets becoming entangled and entrapped at finfish farms when attempting to plunge dive into stocked cages through pole- mounted top nets. Entangled birds may suffer fatal injuries and entrapped birds are subject to stress when confined or during subsequent release by site operators, with unknown longer term consequences for individual survival or breeding success. Such interactions with pole-mounted top net systems have potential to undermine maintenance of gannet populations as viable components of relevant SPAs, through negatively impacting population level adult survival rates and / or breeding success. The population of gannets in Scotland is large (243,505 pairs in 2013-14) and continues to grow rapidly (2.9% per annum between 2003-4 and 2013-14). All SPA populations are currently in Favourable Conservation Status with stable populations, as detailed below: Given favourable status and dynamics of gannet populations, high levels of mortality of breeding of adults would be required to undermine SPA conservation objectives. There is currently limited empirical information on interactions between gannets and pole- mounted top nets, but the incidents we are aware of involving multiple birds have been associated with ceiling mesh sizes of 200mm or greater. The adoption of ceiling mesh dimension of 100mm or less is considered, on both theoretical grounds and in light of the currently available evidence, to pose low risk of damaging interactions with gannets. Page 163
Page 164
58 Classification: OFFICIAL STAGE 5: CAN IT BE ASCERTAINED THAT THE PROPOSAL WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE? It is concluded that there is no Adverse Effect on Site Integrity with respect to breeding gannet populations associated with permitting the adoption of pole-mounted top nets with ceiling mesh dimensions of 100 mm or less at existing finfish aquaculture sites in Scottish waters. The conclusion is however subject to strict planning conditions being applied to all relevant consents (as outlined below and detailed in associated Standing Advice) to ensure avoidance of future Adverse Effect in Site Integrity, including consideration of cumulative and in-combination effects. Additional – to that outlined in Stage 4 – mitigation or modifications that are required to ensure adverse effects are avoided and the reasons for these. CONCLUSION / ADVICE IN RELATION TO PLAN OR PROJECT Use of pole-mounted top net systems with ceiling mesh dimension of 100 mm or less at existing finfish aquaculture sites in Scotland can be permitted. Page 164
Page 165
Site Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2009. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No.100023368, 2010. ° Date: 05.09.24 Location Plan relative to 23/01758/MFF Formation of fish farm (Atlantic Salmon) incorporating 8 x 160m circumference circular cages and siting of feeding barge, Fish Farm, West of Isle of Gigha Scale: 1:20,000Drawn By: kmk Page 165
Page 166
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 167
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth Planning Application Report and Report of Handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle Reference No: 24/00564/PP Planning hierarchy: Local Applicant: Fyne Homes Development: Erection of Eight Affordable Dwellinghouses and Formation of Vehicular Accesses Site Address: Vacant Land at Junction of Ballochgoy Road and Blain Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of eight affordable dwellinghouses • Formation of vehicular accesses and parking spaces • Formation of retaining walls in curtilages of dwellinghouses • Installation of surface water drainage system • Formation of refuse and recycling storage areas in curtilages of dwellinghouses (ii) Other specified operations • Connection to public water main and public foul drainage system • Landscaping (B) RECOMMENDATION: Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions, reasons and informative notes set out below. Page 167 Agenda Item 7
Page 168
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (C) CONSULTATIONS: Scottish Water (letter dated 17th April 2024) Scottish Water has no objection to this planning application; however, the applicant should be aware that this does not confirm that the proposed development can currently be serviced. There is currently sufficient capacity in the Dhu Loch Water Treatment Works to service the development. However, further investigations may require to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted. There is currently sufficient capacity for a foul only connection in the Rothesay Waste Water Treatment Works. However, further investigations may be required to be carried out once a formal application has been submitted. Area Roads Engineer (reports dated 23rd July 2024 and 30th August 2024) There was an initial recommendation of deferral in order for two issues to be resolved – the close proximity to the junction of Ballochgoy Road and Blain Terrace of the parking spaces proposed for the dwelling at Plot 8 and the provision of a full length dropped footway adjacent to the off-street parking rather than repeated transitions. Amended drawings have been submitted that satisfactorily address the above and the Roads Engineer has confirmed that he now has no objections to the proposal subject to conditions regarding the provision of adequate visibility splays from each driveway and the prevention of surface water flowing onto the public road corridor. JBA Consulting (report dated 27th August 2024) The site is located outwith all indicative limits of flooding from a 1:200 year plus climate change annual probability event as per the SEPA Future Flood Maps. The supplied drainage strategy informs that surface water will be collected at each of the proposed dwellings, attenuated and then discharged into the combined Scottish Water sewer close to the site. It is unlikely that Scottish Water will accept this discharge but, at this time, a formal definitive response has not yet been received. It is recommended that no development should take place until discharge into the public system is authorised and written confirmation provided to the Planning Authority. The drainage document informs that discharge into the sewer is to be restricted to 0.35 litres per second and this rate is considered to be acceptable. Page 168
Page 169
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL (D) HISTORY: Planning Permission (ref: 05/00669/DET) granted on 8th September 2005 for the erection of 34 dwellinghouses on land to the north and west of the subject site. These dwellinghouses have been completed. Outline Planning Permissions (refs: 06/01181/OUT; 06/01182/OUT; 06/01183/OUT; 06/01184/OUT; 06/01186/OUT; and 06/01187/OUT) were granted on 28th July 2006 for the erection of a dwellinghouse on each of six individual plots on the land that is the subject of the current application. These permissions expired on 28th July 2009 as no applications for the approval of reserved matters had been submitted. Planning Permissions in Principle (refs: 16/02361/PPP; 16/02366/PPP; 16/02367/PPP; 16/02368/PPP; 16/02369/PPP; and 16/02370/PPP) were granted on 3rd November 2016 for the erection of a dwellinghouse on each of six individual plots on the land that is the subject of the current application. These permissions expired on 3rd November 2019 as no approval for the matters specified in the conditions attached to the permissions had been obtained. (E) PUBLICITY: Subject of Neighbour Notification (closing date 1st May 2024) and advertised under Regulation 20 (closing date: 10th May 2024). (F) REPRESENTATIONS: A petition objecting to the application was received on 29th April 2024 and it contained the following sixteen signatories: Karen Banbury, 1 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Edward Glass, 1 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Christine Ross, 2 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute David Ross, 2 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Francis Kemble, 3 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Carol Kemble, 3 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Isobel Rich, 4 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Robert Rich, 4 Ballochgoy Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Donna Devlin, 4 Blain Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Peter Morrison, The Bungalow, Ballochgoy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Fiona McMillan, The Bungalow, Ballochgoy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute Dmitry Ivanov (Address Not Provided) James Gorman, Lilyoak House, 7 Lilyoak Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute A McQuilkan, 7 Prospect Terrace, Rothesay, Isle of Bute C McGinty, 3/1 Havelock Terrace, Rothesay Isle of Bute K Queen, 34 Ballochgoy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute The points raised can be summarised as follows: i. It is stated that the map/plan indicates that the proposal relates to the erection of six dwellinghouses. However, the application lists a proposed development of eight units and an access road but there is no site plan showing the layout and/or designated parking areas. Page 169
Page 170
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Comment: The ‘map/plan’ that is mentioned is likely to be the one that is included in the letter to neighbouring properties, which is not intended to provide full details of the layout of the proposed development. The letter does, however, provide information and guidance on how to view the plans on the Council’s website and, by following the advice, access to all of the drawings and plans is available. ii. Whilst most residents on Bute welcome the idea of affordable housing, it is contended that the consensus of opinion is that it would be infinitely preferable for the numerous structures on the island that are in poor repair (especially in Rothesay) to be renovated. This would not only provide housing for a considerable number of people but would enhance the aesthetic appeal of Bute thereby making the island more attractive for residents and visitors. It is considered that funds should be directed to procurement and renovation to provide affordable homes at a lower environmental and fiscal cost. There is the added factor of the recent introduction of a tax on second homes in Scotland, which will result in the number of available rental homes increasing in number. Comment: In their e-mail dated 4th June 2024, the agent has pointed out that the suggestion of renovating “the numerous structures on the island” whose ownership is unknown is not something the applicant, Fyne Homes, requires to consider as part of a development for new affordable housing. They contend that the proposals will deliver high quality family homes for social rent which reflects local housing need and, in addition, would redevelop a brownfield site in an accessible location. Furthermore, the new homes are proposed to be delivered as modular construction which, the agent explains, provides environmental advantages over traditional forms of construction e.g. reduced construction waste and improved quality over the building lifespan. iii. The Hillhouse Road/Westlands Road route is the only means by which the residential area of Ballochgoy and the municipal refuse and recycling site further to the west can be accessed. It is stated that this route is narrow and it is also contended that it is in a significantly poor state of repair and has a very dangerous, tight and blind intersection where it meets Ballochgoy Road. It is also mentioned that there is congestion caused by a very narrow road just below the proposed site near the bowling club and where there is a bus stop. Comment: The application site is located within an established residential area that is served by publicly adopted roads. In his reports on the proposal, no concerns have been raised by the Area Roads Engineer in respect of the capability of the surrounding road network to accommodate the increase in traffic associated with the erection of the eight dwellinghouses. iv. It is stated that there is already a problem with access to Ballochgoy Road and that parking is impossible with a long stretch of single lane road immediately below the site of the proposed development and where a bus stop is situated near the Bowling Club. Page 170
Page 171
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL It is pointed out that the amount of parking presently available for existing residents is insufficient and this is before taking into account the demand created by vehicles associated with visitors, carers and nursing staff. Comment: The proposal involves the provision of in-curtilage parking for each dwellinghouse and visitor parking that is in accordance with the standards set out in Policy 40 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2. v. There are several disabled residents with mobility scooters who already have a very difficult time negotiating the narrow pavement and, with the addition of works traffic, it would become impossible for them and also for the bus to safely use this stretch of road. This would cause extreme safety concerns to the elderly and the young residents/pedestrians who use this road. It is stated that the principal roads (St Bride’s Road and Ballochgoy Road) are too narrow and there are instances of vehicles parking on pavements. All residents (including mothers, children and mobility scooter users) often have to divert from the footway on to the road just below the site for the proposed development. During school holidays and bank holidays, the traffic almost doubles and damage has been done to vehicles. Concern is expressed that the possibility of personal injury is very high. Comment: As mentioned in response to Point (iii) above, no concerns have been raised by the Area Roads Engineer in respect of the capability of the surrounding road network to accommodate the increase in traffic associated with the erection of the eight dwellinghouses. The Area Roads Engineer has recommended there is a continuous dropped pavement which will be easier to use for those with mobility scooters and buggies as they pass the new houses and new driveways and in curtilage parking should prevent parking on the street so the pavement should be kept clear. In terms of the situation during the construction period, please refer to the comments for Point (vi) below. vi. It is contended that construction traffic alone would create the most appalling carnage in the area and would add considerably to congestion and chaos for some time. It is stated that Hillhouse Road (the only route through which access to Ballochgoy is available) was closed for a period in December 2023 due to a water main issue and one of the objectors was unable to drive up the hill and was forced to walk to his house in the pouring rain. It is considered that adding to the burden on this hill would only make matters worse and there is a very real danger of injury. Comment: In their e-mail dated 4th June 2024, the agent has explained that the new homes are proposed to be volumetric modular construction, which means that approximately 90% of the work will be completed off-site before the units are delivered. This will greatly reduce construction traffic and the overall duration of the works and the contractor has also given the commitment to act as a good neighbour and provide regular communication. From a Planning perspective, and in the particular circumstances of this case, a condition is recommended requiring that a Construction Page 171
Page 172
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Management Plan is submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, which will seek to address issues such as construction traffic, site compound, storage areas, dust suppression, etc. vii. It is stated that the plot of land in question becomes flooded during heavy rainfall, which is semi-permanent during winter months. It is alleged that, during periods of heavy rain, the flow of water overwhelms the drains that are already installed as these are not equipped to deal with the outflow. The result is that the road becomes a torrent of water and it sometimes freezes. Concern is expressed that erecting structures on the land would be an added burden that wouldn’t alleviate the existing level of flooding. The application form states that the proposals do not make provision for the sustainable drainage of surface water at the site and this could very well be in breach of environmental legislation. Comment: In their e-mail dated 4th June 2024, the agent has stated that their engineers have reviewed SEPA flood maps and can confirm that the site is at no risk of pluvial or fluvial flooding. The proposals for the site also identify porous bay parking for each individual plot (an effective form of SuDS) whilst the drainage design features an orifice plate that would restrict the discharge rates of all flows meaning the existing system will not be overwhelmed. viii. This is a community of many families although it lacks green space in which children can play safely with the result that they often use the pavement and roads, which is a potential hazard. With the requisite drainage measures in place, the site in question could provide a much needed playground for the existing families to use thus enhancing the safety and desirability of the area. The lack of designated playgrounds on Bute is a factor in families with children not being attracted to the island. Comment: In their e-mail dated 4th June 2024, the agent has stated that, in formulating the design of the proposals, much consideration has been given to ensure that garden spaces are usable for young families, despite the steep slope of the area. The existing area of open space adjacent to the site will not be detrimentally impacted by the proposals. In addition, the requirement to provide open space is only applicable to developments of 10 dwellings or more (Policy 68 – Housing Greenspace). A representation was received on 30th April 2024 from Mrs Julie Gilchrist on behalf of the committee and members of Rothesay Bowling Club, Ballochgoy Road, Rothesay, Isle of Bute. The representation explains that Rothesay Bowling Club are happy to welcome new family homes to the area; however, it is stated that, during the last development, the works proved very detrimental to the daily life of the Club with members and guests being denied the ability to park near to the green. This led to a reduction in numbers coming to play at the Club and affected them financially. While they acknowledge that no build can happen without affecting the local area, they have respectfully asked for consideration and reassurance that disruption would be as minimal as possible this time. They have explained that they cannot afford to lose members and guests (and their revenue) due to lack of parking should Prospect Terrace be closed off again. They have referred to a grassed area adjacent to the boundary fence of the grounds that Fyne Homes maintain and have asked Page 172
Page 173
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL whether this could, perhaps, be repurposed for the provision of some parking spaces. Comment: In their e-mail dated 4th June 2024, the agent has confirmed that the new development will require access from Prospect Terrace; however, they will seek to minimise disruption and include Rothesay Bowling Club within their neighbour communication. They explain that the new homes are proposed to be volumetric modular construction, which means that approximately 90% of the work will be completed off-site before the units are delivered. This will greatly reduce construction traffic and the overall duration of the works and the contractor has also given the commitment to act as a good neighbour and provide regular communication. As mentioned in the response to Point (vi) above, the preparation and agreement to a Construction Management Plan is included as one of the conditions of Planning Permission. (G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION Has the application been the subject of: (i) Environmental Impact Assessment Report: ☐Yes ☒No (ii) An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994: ☐Yes ☒No (iii) A Design or Design/Access statement: ☐Yes ☒No (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist ☒Yes ☐No ☒ Yes ☐ No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc. ‘Drainage, SUDS and Surface Water Management Plan’ – Harley Haddow (November 2023) ☒Yes ☐No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 obligation required: ☐Yes ☒ No Page 173
Page 174
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 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 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management 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 Connected Places Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 33 – Public Transport Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging Points Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Page 174
Page 175
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Sustainable Communities Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plans and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Homes for People Policy 66 – New Residential Development on Non-Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas Policy 67 – Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs Including Affordable Housing High Quality Environment Policy 71 – Development Impact on Local Landscape Area (LLA) Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. Third Party Representations Consultee Responses Planning History Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance 2006 Argyll and Bute Technical Note on Biodiversity (2017) TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (2023) TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (2023) Argyll and Bute Housing Needs and Demand Assessment Argyll and Bute Housing Emergency Statement (K) Is the development a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment: ☐Yes ☒ No (L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation (PAC): ☐Yes ☒ No (M) Does the Council have an interest in the site: ☐Yes ☒ No (N) Requirement for a pre-determination hearing: ☐Yes ☒ No In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, Members should consider the following: Page 175
Page 176
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL • How up to date the Development Plan is; the relevance of the policies to the proposed development; and whether the comments are on Development Plan policy grounds that have recently been considered through the Development Plan process • The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance At the time of writing, a sixteen-signature petition objecting to the application has been submitted and a representation has also been received, which neither advances support nor expresses objection. The determining factors in the assessment of the application are whether the proposed housing development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues introduced by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold Planning Permission. In this instance, the proposal is within the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay area on land that has relatively recently been the subject of Planning Permissions in Principle for residential development; the siting, layout and design of the development are considered to be appropriate; and there are no outstanding infrastructure or servicing issues. These factors result in a proposal that is wholly consistent with the provisions of both National and Local Planning Policy in addition to helping to address the locally and nationally declared ‘housing emergency’. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the information that is available, together with the officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, are sufficiently detailed and robust to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. On this basis, therefore, it is not considered that the objections 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: Local Landscape Area (ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Built-up Area/Unclassified Land Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 ☒ N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Page 176
Page 177
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☒No ☐N/A (iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? ☐Yes ☒No Does the proposal include any replacement or compensatory planting? ☐Yes ☐No – details to be secured by condition ☒Not applicable (iv)Land Status / LDP Settlement Strategy Status of Land within the Application ☐Brownfield ☒Brownfield Reclaimed by Nature ☐Greenfield ABC LDP2 Settlement Strategy ☒Settlement Area ☐Countryside Area ☐Remote Countryside Area ☐Helensburgh & Lomond Greenbelt ABC LDP2 Allocations/PDAs/AFAs etc: N/A (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations Planning Permission is sought for the erection of eight dwellinghouses on a grassed area of land measuring 0.23 hectares in Rothesay, Isle of Bute. It has frontages to the east with Prospect Terrace and to the south with Ballochgoy Road with the part along Ballochgoy Road sloping downwards from west to east whilst the Prospect Terrace end is relatively flat. The proposal comprises four dwellinghouses (two semi-detached blocks) along the Ballochgoy Road frontage and four dwellinghouses (two detached blocks and one semi-detached block) along the Prospect Terrace frontage. The buildings would be two storeys in height; would have a mix of white render and buff brick external wall finish; grey concrete roof tiles; and grey uPVC windows. Vehicular accesses are to be formed to serve in-curtilage parking spaces whilst connection is to be made to the public water supply and waste water system. Page 177
Page 178
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Principle of Development The site is located within the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) and, given that it was previously occupied by flatted blocks but is now grass, it represents brownfield land that has become naturalised. The type of development that is proposed is considered to be compatible within this established homogenous residential area and it would be a small-scale scheme in the context of its surroundings. It successfully contributes to ‘Local Living’ by providing homes where the occupants can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. Furthermore, it would provide eight units of affordable housing via a Registered Social Landlord and agreement on the timescale for build-out can be achieved through a condition. Sense of Place and Quality of Design Having regard to the built development pattern and densities of the local area, it is noted that there is a range of scale and design of houses. The proposed dwellings will most closely resemble the buildings that the housing association erected in the upper part of Ballochgoy Road and along Blain Terrace and, in this sense, their scale, design and finishes are reflective of nearby properties that have been constructed in the relatively recent past. As evidenced by the contents of the checklists provided by the agent, a significant number of features are incorporated into the development that demonstrate its ‘Sustainability’ credentials, including renewable energy and design & construction methods, which fully accord with current Development Plan policy. Natural Environment No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority and, in the particular circumstances of the proposal, no conditions relating to specific measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection are considered to be necessary. The site for the proposed development is not within an area that is designated for its nature conservation interests. The site is located within the Bute Local Landscape Area (LLA), and it is considered that the submitted plans and drawings; the completed Sustainability Checklist and Sustainable Buildings Checklist; and the carrying out of an officer site inspection provide sufficient information to allow an appropriate form of assessment to be carried out. Although the Ballochgoy area is in an elevated position that can be seen from a number of medium-to-long distance views, the application site is a relatively minor component within the wider panoramic landscape. The proposed dwellings would reflect the predominant colour scheme that is a recognisable feature from the more distant viewpoints and, as such, the development would have a ‘neutral’ effect upon the visual qualities of the wider LLA. Page 178
Page 179
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The site is not within an identified area of peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat nor does it have an agricultural land classification. As such, there are no issues in relation to soil disturbance. Residential Amenity There are potential issues of interlooking between habitable room windows but these can be addressed through the attaching of suitably-worded conditions. Access, Parking and Impact on the Local Road Network The development site is served by two bus services and is located appropriately in terms of connecting into existing active travel networks such as walking, wheeling and cycling. The provision of a vehicle charging point, or the infrastructure to allow its installation at a future date, can be secured by means of a planning condition. It is proposed that each dwellinghouse would have an individual driveway onto the public road that would serve two or three in-curtilage parking spaces appropriate to the number of bedrooms in the property. The Area Roads Engineer had initially raised two issues – the proximity of one set of parking spaces to an existing junction and the dropping of the kerb across the full length of the footway rather than having repeated transitions. The agent has submitted a revised plan addressing these two matters and it has been accepted by the Roads Engineer. Waste Storage, Infrastructure, Services, Flood and Water Management The only issue of significance relates to the proposed drainage strategy whereby surface water would be collected at each of the proposed dwellings, attenuated and then discharged into the combined Scottish Water sewer close to the site. The principle of this type of arrangement is not generally supported by Scottish Water although they mention that they would consider a request for a connection should special circumstances be demonstrated. It is understood that there is an ongoing dialogue between consultants representing the developer and Scottish Water and, in these particular circumstances, it is considered that a negatively-worded suspensive condition is appropriate. (Q) Is the application consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission should be granted The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan which comprise National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and there are no other material considerations of sufficient Page 179
Page 180
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL significance to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan Not applicable. (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Steven Gove Date: 30th August 2024 Reviewing Officer: Kirsty Sweeney Date: 30th August 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 180
Page 181
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/00564/PP Standard Time Limit Condition for Planning Permission (as defined by Regulation) Standard Condition on Soil Management During Construction Additional Conditions 1. Unless otherwise directed by any of the conditions below, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the application form dated 22nd March 2024; the Addendum dated 3rd April 2024; supporting information; and the approved drawings listed in the table below unless the prior written approval of the Planning Authority is obtained for an amendment to the approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. Plan Title. Plan Ref. No. Version Date Received Location Plan Drawing No. 7860/LOC - 28.03.2024 Existing Site Plan Drawing No. 7860/01 B 04.04.2024 Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. 7860/02 F 22.08.2024 House Type B Drawing No. 7860/03 D 28.03.2024 House Type E Drawing No. 7860/04 D 04.04.2024 Street Elevations as Proposed Drawing No. 7860/05 A 25.03.2024 Existing Below Ground Drainage Layout Drawing No. 312115-HAH- XX-XX-D-C-00030 P01 25.03.2024 Existing Below Ground Drainage Layout (Remediation) Drawing No. 312115-HAH- XX-XX-D-C-00031 P02 25.03.2024 Proposed Below Ground Drainage Layout Drawing No. 312115-HAH- XX-XX-D-C-00032 P03 25.03.2024 Proposed External Levels Layout Drawing No. 312115-HAH- XX-XX-D-C-00040 P04 25.03.2024 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. Page 181
Page 182
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 2. Parking Spaces and Dropped Footways Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, prior to the development first being occupied, the following works shall be completed in accordance with the details shown on the approved Drawing No. 7860/02 Rev F ‘Proposed Site Plan’: • The parking areas within the curtilage of each dwellinghouse and the visitor parking spaces shown as V1 and V2 shall be laid out and surfaced and shall thereafter be maintained clear of obstruction for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles • The entire length of the footway along Ballochgoy Road between the westernmost parking bay at Plot 8 and the easternmost parking bay at Plot 5 shall be dropped • The entire length of the footway along Prospect Terrace between the northernmost parking bay at Plot 1 and the southernmost parking bay at Plot 4 shall be dropped Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety. 3. Visibility Splays Prior to the occupation of each individual dwellinghouse, sightlines of 42 metres in both directions, measured from a distance of 2.4 metres back from the edge of the public road at the centre point of the two in-curtilage parking spaces, shall be cleared of all obstructions above a height of 1.05 metres from the level of the road and thereafter maintained as such in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of road and pedestrian safety. 4. Removal of PD Rights - Dwellinghouses 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 Class 1D and 2B of the aforementioned Schedule, as summarised below: 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. Reason: To prevent the formation of additional window/door openings or dormer windows which may give rise to a loss of privacy to adjoining property without prior assessment on application by the Planning Authority; which would otherwise be capable of being carried out under Article 2(4) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (as amended). Page 182
Page 183
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 5. Secure Affordability by Restricting Development to RSL The development hereby permitted shall only be implemented by a Registered Social Landlord (a body registered under part 3 chapter 1 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, or any equivalent provision in the event of the revocation and re-enactment thereof, with or without modification) and shall not enure for the benefit of any other person, company or organisation. Reason: To ensure the provision of affordable housing to the standard required by the development plan in the absence of any other agreed means of securing such provision. 6. Timescale to be Agreed for Completion Prior to development commencing, details of the proposed timescale for completion of the approved development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with 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. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 7. Electric Vehicle Charging Prior to the commencement of the development (or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), a scheme detailing the provision of a minimum 7kw electric vehicle charging point shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Where charging cannot be provided then the appropriate ducting to future proof the property must be installed. The approved charging point or, where relevant, the approved cable ducting shall be installed in full prior to the first occupation of the development, and thereafter retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority Reason: to comply with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging. 8. Surface Water Drainage No development shall commence on the site until written evidence has been submitted to the Planning Authority that Scottish Water (or any of its successors as the organisation responsible for the public waste water treatment system) has authorised the connection of surface water drainage from the site into the combined sewer. Such evidence shall include full details of the design of the surface water drainage system that has been agreed with Scottish Water and the approved arrangements shall be fully installed prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouses. Reason: To ensure the provision of an adequate surface water drainage system and to prevent flooding. 9. Landscape/Surface/Boundary Treatment and Biodiversity Enhancement No development shall commence until a scheme of boundary treatment, surface treatment and landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: Page 183
Page 184
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL 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 including the details of the retaining walls; 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 boundary treatment, surface treatment and any re-contouring works have been completed in accordance with the duly approved scheme. 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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To assist with the integration of the proposal with its surroundings in the interest of amenity, and to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3 10. Construction hours In order to minimise, as far as necessary, the level of noise and/or vibration to which nearby existing residents will be exposed during the erection of the dwellinghouses, the hours of working in relation to the construction of the development on the site should be restricted to 08.00 to 18:30 Monday to Friday and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. There should be no operations on Sundays or Bank Holidays. All operations should be undertaken in compliance with best practicable means for noise and vibration control as documented in BS 5228- 1:2009+A1:2014 and BS 5228- 2:2009+A1:2014. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity. 11. Provision of Screening to Prevent Interlooking Between Habitable Room Windows Prior to the occupation of the dwellinghouses identified on the approved plans as Plot Numbers 7 and 8, details of those screening measures that are to be implemented along the boundary of the site as it meets with the southernmost curtilage of No. 2 Blain Terrace shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Such details shall identify the provision of a fence (or similar means of boundary treatment) that shall ensure there is no direct unobstructed line of sight between the window on the south-facing elevation of No. 2 Blain Terrace and the windows of any habitable rooms on the north-facing elevations of the dwellinghouses on Plot Numbers 7 and 8. The screening measures shall be fully installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the subject dwellinghouses and shall be maintained Page 184
Page 185
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL in a safe and tidy condition thereafter unless the prior written consent of the Planning Authority is obtained for variation. Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of the existing and proposed dwellinghouses having regard to the relevant provisions of NPF4 and the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2 and its related Technical Notes. 12. Installation of Air Source Heat Pump Prior to the installation of any air source heat pumps within the development site, full details of their location and specification shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The noise level from the operation of any air source heat pumps that are installed must not exceed 42dB LAeq (5 min) at 1 metre from the window of a habitable room on the façade of any neighbouring residential property. If, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, any air source heat pump results in a noise nuisance to the occupant of any neighbouring dwelling, the Applicant shall install noise mitigation measures in agreement with the Planning Authority. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interest of amenity 13. Waste Storage Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, a detailed specification of the containers to be used to store waste materials and recyclable materials produced by the dwelling houses as well as specific details of the areas where such containers are to be located shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the storage of waste and recyclable materials shall be fully installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of each dwellinghouse. Reason: In the interest of visual amenity; to ensure that there is adequate storage for recycling of waste; and to protect the amenity of the immediate area by preventing the creation of nuisance due to odours, insects, rodents or birds. 14. Construction Management Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The plan shall include the following: o Contact details for the contractor o The proposed route of construction traffic o The turning areas and wheel washing areas o The provision of appropriate signage o The location of the site compound (if any) and the parking area for vehicles belonging to site operatives and visitors o The location of the storage area (if any) for plant and materials used in the construction the development o The method of working and the measures to be implemented to control the emission of dust during construction. Such details shall be in accordance with the methodology outlined in the IAQM guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction 2014 (version 1.1) Page 185
Page 186
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL o The location of the security fencing Thereafter, all works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed Construction Management Plan. Reason: In order to avoid sources of nuisance in the interests of amenity. Page 186
Page 187
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL INFORMATIVE NOTES 1. The attention of the applicant/developer is drawn to the contents of the letter from Scottish Water dated 17th April 2024, which is available for inspection on the Council’s web site. With specific regard to Condition 8 above, it should be noted that Scottish Water have stated that, other than in limited exceptional circumstances, they will not accept any surface water connections into their combined sewer system for reasons of sustainability and to protect existing customers from flooding. In order to depart from this position on surface water connections, Scottish Water require significant justification to be prepared and submitted by the applicant/developer. It will be for the developer and their engineers to submit their case to Scottish Water. If this is found to be an unacceptable arrangement, an amended development may have to be designed or a different surface water drainage system may have to be formulated. The details of such a scheme will be expected to comply with SuDS and will be considered by the Planning Authority’s Flood Risk Adviser as required. 2. Those works to be undertaken on or adjacent to the public road will require a Road Opening Permit (S56) in advance of being carried out and it will also be necessary for positive drainage measures to be incorporated into the design of each individual access to ensure that surface water drainage will not pass on to the footway or carriageway. The applicant/developer is advised to contact Roads and Amenity Services on 01546 605514 or to use the following link to the Council's website: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/licences/road-opening-permit Page 187
Page 188
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/00564/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT Site and Proposed Development The Canmore website (which is compiled and managed by Historic Environment Scotland) explains that the Ballochgoy area is on a steeply sloping site in the western part of Rothesay that stretches from Chapelhill in the north, through Columshill, to Barone Road in the south. The earliest buildings in Ballochgoy were to the north and date from the late 18th century. There was expansion in the middle portion during the late 1930s with the development of planned streets and terraces comprising four-in-a-block local authority housing. In the southern part, a later phase of local authority housing was built in the 1970s, which comprises terraced houses and bungalows in a staggered layout centred on Bryce Avenue and Robertson Drive. Between 2005 and 2008, Fyne Homes carried out a major reworking of the 1930s local authority housing to build homes fit for purpose in the 21st century. The redevelopment of Blain Terrace, Prospect Terrace, Ballochgoy Road and the western side of Longhill Crescent involved the demolition of twenty residential blocks (a total of eighty-eight units) and the erection of thirty-four dwellings. This scheme retained the main boundaries of the underlying 1930s plot structure but redeveloped the plots within these boundaries to create larger units comprising semi-detached properties with their own gardens rather than the previous four-in-a-block properties sharing ‘back greens’. At the time of the redevelopment, Fyne Homes Initiatives (a subsidiary of Fyne Homes) retained eight plots within the overall development area and these were the subject of individual Outline Planning Permissions in 2006/2007 and Planning Permissions in Principle in 2016. None of these permissions were progressed through the submission of detailed proposals and, as mentioned in Section (D) of this report, six of these plots comprise the current application site. The development site is presently covered by grass and measures an area of 0.23 hectares. It has frontages to the east with Prospect Terrace and to the south with Ballochgoy Road with the part along Ballochgoy Road sloping downwards from west to east whilst the Prospect Terrace end is relatively flat. The proposal relates to the erection of four dwellinghouses (two semi-detached blocks) along the Ballochgoy Road frontage and four dwellinghouses (two detached blocks and one semi- detached block) along the Prospect Terrace frontage. The buildings would be two storeys in height; would have a mix of white render and buff brick external wall finish; grey concrete roof tiles; and grey uPVC windows. Vehicular accesses are to be formed to serve in-curtilage parking spaces whilst connection is to be made to the public water supply and waste water system. The assessment of the issues in this section of the report pay due regard to the overarching NPF4 Policy 1, which seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance for or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. Page 188
Page 189
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL The key issues for consideration are: 1. Spatial & Settlement Strategy and Principle of Development 2. Sense of Place and Quality of Design 3. Natural Environment 4. Residential Amenity 5. Access, Parking and Impact on the Local Road Network 6. Infrastructure and Services 7. Flood and Water Management Spatial & Settlement Strategy and Principle of Development NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. NPF4 Policy 9(a) supports proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land and, in determining whether the reuse is sustainable, the biodiversity value of brownfield land which has naturalised should be taken into account. NPF4 Policy 15(a) seeks development proposals to contribute to ‘Local Living’ including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to a number of facilities. NPF4 Policy 16 seeks to “encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations” and to provide choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs. NPF4 Policy 16 (f) supports new homes on land not allocated for housing where the proposal is supported by an agreed timescale for build-out; it is otherwise consistent with the plan spatial strategy and other relevant policies, including local living; it is consistent with the policy on rural homes; and it represents a smaller scale opportunity within an existing settlement. Policy 01 (‘Settlement Areas’) of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) notes that development will normally be acceptable where, inter alia: ▪ It involves the redevelopment of a brownfield site ▪ It is compatible with surrounding uses including, but not exclusively, the provision of access, service areas and infrastructure for existing, proposed or potential future development Page 189
Page 190
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL ▪ It is of an appropriate scale and fit for the size of settlement in which it is proposed ▪ It respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of density, scale, massing, design, external finishes and access arrangements ▪ It complies with all relevant LDP2 policies LDP2 Policy 66 (‘New Residential Development On Non–Allocated Housing Sites within Settlement Areas’) requires that new buildings will only be permitted where: o The layout, density, plot ratio, scale, form and materials of any proposed development do not detract from the character of the surrounding buildings and the local area o It does not affect the privacy and amenity of existing and proposed properties o The site provides a suitable residential environment o It provides appropriate private and public open space and o An appropriate standard of access to and parking for vehicles associated with the development is provided, it does not result in the loss of any existing parking spaces, and that traffic generated as a result of the development is capable of being accommodated within the capacity of the existing road network surrounding the development o It is not detrimental to the overall housing land supply of the LDP2 LDP2 Policy 67 (‘Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs Including Affordable Housing’) requires that all new housing developments of 8 or more units will generally be expected to contribute a proportion of affordable housing and to provide a range of house types and sizes to meet the local housing needs and demand identified in the Housing Needs and Demand Assessment for each housing market area. Assessment The site is located within the ‘Main Town’ of Rothesay as identified in the adopted Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan (LDP2) and, given that it was previously occupied by flatted blocks but is now grass, it represents brownfield land that has become naturalised. The type of development that is proposed is considered to be compatible within this established homogenous residential area and it would be a small-scale scheme in the context of its surroundings. It successfully contributes to ‘Local Living’ by providing homes where the occupants can meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance by walking, wheeling or cycling or using sustainable transport options. Furthermore, it would provide eight units of affordable housing and agreement on the timescale for build-out can be achieved through a condition. The detailed assessment that follows in this report demonstrates that the proposed development would preserve the character and appearance of the townscape in terms of use, density, scale, massing, design, external finishes, access and infrastructure arrangements. On the basis of the above, it is considered that there is a general presumption in favour of the principle of this proposed development in terms of its location, nature and scale Page 190
Page 191
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL when assessed against the policy provisions relating to the LDP2 Settlement Strategy and relevant NPF4 Policy. Sense of Place and Quality of Design NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle. NPF4 Policy 14(b) supports development proposals where they would be consistent with the six qualities of ‘health’; ‘pleasantness’; ‘connectivity’; ‘distinctiveness’; ‘sustainability’; and ‘adaptability’. NPF4 Policy 14(c) does not support development that is poorly designed, detrimental to the amenities of surrounding areas or inconsistent with the aforementioned six qualities. NPF4 Policy 14 is closely aligned with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 04 (‘Sustainable Development’) which requires developers to demonstrate certain sustainable development principles and also Policy 05 (‘Design and Placemaking’) which requires developers to comply with certain placemaking criteria including: compatibility with surrounding land uses; making use of existing infrastructure; respecting site topography; improving connectivity; and adopting design that respects and complements its surroundings and which is sustainable in terms of materials and construction. LDP2 Policy 08 (‘Sustainable Siting’) requires that development integrates into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment. The siting of a development should take into account the character of the area in terms of its settlement pattern, layout and density. It should be positioned within the landscape to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements and located within easy access of existing infrastructure and services. Additionally, 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; an acknowledgement of the scale / massing of nearby buildings; and the use of materials that are harmonious with the context. In relation to sustainability, the application has included the submission of the ‘Sustainability Checklist’ and the ‘Sustainable Buildings Checklist’ in response to LDP2 Policy 09. The application responds to the sustainability criteria as follows: ▪ The proposed modular construction process greatly reduces construction waste through the accurate quantification and control of materials. The materials are brought into a controlled factory environment and kept clean, dry and organised for use, thereby reducing waste and damage particularly as a result of weather. Use of material off-cuts and recycling of waste and packaging is also made much easier by the controlled factory environment ▪ The proposed modular construction process minimises deliveries, material storage and works on site which vastly reduces the risk of any environmental disruption ▪ Where possible, the intention will be to procure from the local supply chain for groundworks; bulk stone; retaining structures; plot works; etc. ▪ The proposals will utilise a volumetric modular, timber frame structure rather than a higher embodied material such as a concrete or steel frame solution Page 191
Page 192
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL ▪ The site is relatively steeply sloping and will, therefore, require works to create level development plots. A ‘cut and fill’ exercise is being proposed although it is being kept to a minimum. The development has been designed to work as best as possible with the existing levels and previously engineered platforms ▪ The use of retaining walls allows the homes to hunker down into the sloping site to integrate into the topography. The orientation of the buildings and site layout work with the natural contours of the site ▪ The allowance for the installation of a future shower on the ground floor and stair-lift is in accordance with the technical standards and ‘Housing for Varying Needs’ ▪ The project supports new ways of working as the houses include home working spaces that would accommodate a desk and internet access ▪ The proposed homes have been designed on the site to make the best use of solar gain, natural ventilation and shelter from the elements through the use of greater glazing on south facing elevations. These windows open to maximise ventilation and the homes will be sheltered through the use of retaining walls ▪ Air source heat pumps will be installed to provide space/water heating which provides a net-zero carbon at source technology ▪ Aerated taps are included as a water saving technology ▪ The refuse strategy for the site will comply with local policy. Bin storage areas within private gardens will accommodate the necessary number of waste and recycling bins ▪ Each home includes its own private garden space to allow bicycle storage ▪ The proposals will align with Building Control requirements in relation to Electric Vehicle Charging Assessment Having regard to the built development pattern and densities of the local area, it is noted that there is a range of scale and design of houses – the semi-detached dwellings surrounding the site to the north and west that were built by Fyne Homes in the second half of the 2000s and the older and more substantial four-in-a-block properties located further above the site on St Bride’s Road and below the site on Longhill Terrace. The proposed dwellings will most closely resemble the buildings that the housing association erected in the upper part of Ballochgoy Road and along Blain Terrace and, in this sense, their scale, design and finishes are reflective of nearby properties that have been constructed in the relatively recent past. As evidenced by the contents of the checklists provided by the agent, a significant number of features are incorporated into the development that demonstrate its ‘Sustainability’ credentials, including renewable energy and design & construction methods, which fully accord with current Development Plan policy. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above. Page 192
Page 193
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Natural Environment NPF4 Policy 3 generally seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and to deliver positive benefits from development that strengthens nature networks. It 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 the current biodiversity interests of the site. NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature- based solutions and, insofar as it relates to the location, nature and scale of the current proposal, it largely aligns with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 73. LDP2 Policy 04 (‘Sustainable Development’) seeks to conserve and enhance the natural and built environment and to avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and heritage assets. LDP2 Policy 73 ensures that other legislation relating to biodiversity habitats are fully considered in relation to development proposals; and generally that development does not have an adverse impact on habitat or species, particularly in relation to habitat or species designated as being of European, national or local significance. The site is located in the Bute Local Landscape Area (LLA) and this designation is a recognition of locally important physical landforms that are of scenic value. LDP2 Policy 71 seeks to resist development in, or affecting, an LLA where its scale, location or design would have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape and one of the requirements contained in it is that an application for development within an LLA should be supported by a landscape and visual impact assessment. NPF4 Policy 5 seeks to protect carbon-rich soils, restore peatlands and minimise disturbance to soils from development. Policy 5(a) only supports proposals if they are designed and constructed in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding and then minimising the amount of disturbance to soils on undeveloped land; in a manner that protects soil from damage including from compaction and erosion; and that minimises soil sealing. LDP2 Policy 79 seeks to only support development where appropriate measures are taken to maintain soil resources and functions to an extent that is considered relevant and proportionate to the scale of the development. Policy 5(b) only supports proposals on prime agricultural land or on land of lesser quality that is culturally or locally important for primary use providing that they might specific criteria. Assessment The site presently comprises grassland that has been left vacant since the demolition of the previous buildings on the site nineteen years ago. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Authority and, in the particular circumstances of the proposal, no conditions relating to specific measures for biodiversity enhancement and protection are considered to be necessary. The site for the proposed development is not within any of the following: a designated European site of natural environment conservation or protection; a National Scenic Area; a SSSI or RAMSAR site; a National Nature Reserve; or a Local Nature Conservation Site. Whilst the site is located within the Bute LLA, no formal landscape and visual impact assessment has been submitted with the application. However, the proposal is for a small scale residential development that would be viewed in the context of an area of existing housing. In these circumstances, it is considered that the submitted plans and drawings; the Page 193
Page 194
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL completed Sustainability Checklist and Sustainable Buildings Checklist; and the carrying out of an officer site inspection provide sufficient information to allow an appropriate form of assessment to be carried out. Given its elevated position, the Ballochgoy area can be seen from a number of medium-to- long distance views, including at ‘street level’ in East Princes Street and Battery Place to the east and north-east of the town centre and from the higher locations in the eastern part of Rothesay around Serpentine Road, Canada Hill and the Roseland Holiday Park. These views are panoramic in nature and the application site, whilst visible, is a relatively minor component within a wider landscape. There are variations in the design of buildings in the Ballochgoy townscape although dark grey roof coverings and white external walls predominate and the proposed dwellings would reflect this colour scheme. In the circumstances set out above, it is considered that the proposal would have a ‘neutral’ effect upon the visual qualities of the wider LLA. The site is not within an identified area of peatland, carbon-rich soils or priority peatland habitat and, in these circumstances, it is considered sufficient that the standard soil management condition (ensuring compliance with the established best practice set out by DEFRA) is attached to the Decision Notice. The site is within a built-up area and does not have an agricultural land classification. On this basis, it is not considered that the proposal would result in the loss of land that is “culturally or locally important for primary use”. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above. Residential Amenity LDP2 Policy 08 (‘Sustainable Siting’) requires that proposals should integrate into the landscape or existing built form to minimise detrimental effects on the environment taking into account a number of factors, including the careful siting of development to avoid overshadowing or overlooking of itself or other properties. Section 2.0.3 of TN06 ‘Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist’ includes the following comments: “No main window of a habitable room (i.e. all rooms except bathrooms and hallways) within a dwelling shall overlook (directly face) the main windows of habitable rooms in neighbouring dwellings at a distance of less than 18 metres … These standards may be relaxed where the angle of view or the design (i.e. use of frosted glass) of the windows allows privacy to be maintained.” Assessment In respect of potential interlooking, the first issue is that the south-facing gable of 2 Blain Terrace has a kitchen window and it would be located approximately 16 metres from the north- facing (rear) gable of the dwellings shown for Plots 7 and 8, which is shown as having windows serving bedrooms on the upper floor and windows and glazed doors serving a lounge on the ground floor. This matter was drawn to the attention of the agent and, in their e-mail dated 17th July, they have suggested that a solution would be for a condition to be attached requiring a 1800mm Page 194
Page 195
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL high close boarded timber fence to be erected on an agreed route along the boundary between the existing and proposed houses. They have confirmed that Fyne Homes own the existing and proposed properties and, therefore, would be able to control this requirement. The second issue is that the north-facing gable of the existing Nos. 7 and 8 Lilyoak Terrace has two windows that face toward the south-facing gable of the proposed dwelling on Plot 4 and these would be 14 metres apart. Whilst no windows are currently shown on the south-facing gable of Plot 4, the rooms at this side of the proposed dwelling are all ‘habitable’ and, as a result of householder ‘Permitted Development’ rights, Planning Permission would not be needed if, at some point in the future when the buildings had been constructed, new window or door openings were to be installed in this elevation. The layout of the proposed development itself could also result in potential situations where new windows serving habitable rooms could face each other at a distance of less than 18 metres. In their e-mail dated 17th July, the agent has confirmed that Fyne Homes are content for the attaching of a condition that withdraws the ‘Permitted Development’ rights associated with the creation of new window and door openings such that the approval of the Planning Authority would be required in advance of this type of work taking place. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to the attaching of suitably-worded conditions, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above. Access, Parking and Impact on the Local Road Network NPF4 Policy 13 generally seeks “to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably”. More specifically, NPF4 Policy 13(b) supports developments where it can be demonstrated that the transport requirements generated have been considered in line with the sustainable travel and investment hierarchies and where appropriate they, inter alia: • Provide direct, easy, segregated and safe links to local facilities via walking, wheeling and cycling networks before occupation • Will be accessible by public transport, ideally supporting the use of existing services LDP2 Policy 32 largely aligns with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 in terms of ensuring that new development is sustainably located with regard to local services and public transport routes and has safe links with active travel networks. LDP2 Policy 34 requires the provision of electric vehicle charge points or the installation of infrastructure with the potential to accommodate charge points in future. All new-build houses with private off street parking are required to install dedicated cable ducting connecting each private residential parking space to the nearest electricity supply connection point capable of supporting the installation of a 7 kW EV charging point. LDP2 Policy 35 advises that the 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. Page 195
Page 196
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL LDP2 Policy 36 considers that new private accesses forming an individual private driveway serving a single user development may be acceptable where they do not, in the view of the Planning Authority, generate unacceptable levels of traffic in relation to the access regime. LDP2 Policy 39 sets out construction standards for new private accesses in order to function safely and effectively. This includes reference to visibility, geometry, gradients, widths, etc. LDP2 Policy 40 requires the provision of off-street parking to Council approved standards relative to the type of development as set out in Table 5. For housing (Use Class 9), the requirement is two spaces for a two-three bedroom unit or three spaces for a four-bedroom (or more) unit. Assessment In terms of active travel principles, the development site is located within the existing town of Rothesay and the bus services 491 and 492 run along Ballochgoy Road directly in front of the proposed dwellings. The nearest bus stop is less than 10 metres from the front door of Plot 6. The location is appropriate in terms of connecting into existing active travel networks such as walking, wheeling and cycling. The provision of a vehicle charging point, or the infrastructure to allow its installation at a future date, can be secured by means of a planning condition. As regards access and parking, it is proposed that each dwellinghouse would have an individual driveway onto the public road that would serve two or three in-curtilage parking spaces appropriate to the number of bedrooms in the property. The Area Roads Engineer initially commented that the two parking spaces to be provided for the dwelling at Plot 8 were excessively close to the junction of Ballochgoy Road and Blain Terrace and, in that position, would present a road safety risk. In response, the agent has submitted a revised plan identifying the relocation of the parking bays for Plots 7 and 8 in an easterly direction with the first bay to be positioned 11.5m (or thereby) from the heel kerb of Blain Terrace. The Area Roads Engineer has confirmed that this amended arrangement satisfactorily addresses the concern that he had expressed. The second matter raised by the Roads Department was that, for the convenience of pedestrians / wheelers, those footways that would be contiguous with each of the off-street parking spaces should be dropped across their full length rather than having repeated transitions. The agent has confirmed that Fyne Homes are content with this recommendation and the revised plan includes the recommended adjustment. A condition has also been recommended by the Roads Department in respect of the formation and maintenance of 42 metre sightlines in both directions at each of the individual in-curtilage parking spaces. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to suitably-worded conditions and informative notes, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above. Waste Storage/Collection, Infrastructure and Services NPF4 Policy 12(c) expects that those developments that are likely to generate waste when operational (including residential, commercial, and industrial properties) should incorporate Page 196
Page 197
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL measures to minimise the cross-contamination of materials through the appropriate segregation and storage of waste together with convenient access for the collection of waste. Policy 63 of LDP2 explains that developments shall make effective land use and layout provision for the storage, separation, recycling, composting and collection of waste. NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of place making. Policy 18(b) advocates that the impacts of development proposals on infrastructure should be mitigated and that they will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that provision is made to address the impacts on infrastructure. NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding and one of the policy outcomes is that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. Policy 22(d) supports the connection of new development to a public water supply but states that, if connection is not feasible, the applicant will need to demonstrate that water for drinking purposes will be sourced from a sustainable water source that is resilient to periods of water scarcity. Policy 60 of LDP2 explains that connection to the public sewer as defined in the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 will be a prerequisite of planning permission for development proposals in all settlements where there is a public sewer available. Assessment The proposed development is likely to generate waste when the dwellinghouses are occupied and, as this part of Ballochgoy already benefits from regular waste uplifts by the Council, it is expected to comply with the Local Authority’s adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. The application shows an area within the grounds of each dwellinghouse for the accommodation of the necessary number of waste and recycling bins and finalised details of these arrangements are sought through a condition. The proposed development is to be connected to the public water supply and the public waste water treatment system. Scottish Water has confirmed that there is currently sufficient capacity to service the development in the Dhu Loch Water Treatment Works and for a foul only connection in the Rothesay Waste Water Treatment Works although further investigations may require to be carried out once formal applications are submitted to them. On the basis of the foregoing, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above. Flood and Water Management NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk by promoting avoidance as a first principle and reducing the vulnerability of existing and future development to flooding and one of the policy outcomes is that places are resilient to current and future flood risk. NPF4 Policy 22(c) seeks to ensure that proposed developments will not increase the risk of surface water flooding to others, or itself be at risk; will manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS); and will seek to minimise the area of impermeable surface. There should also be a presumption against surface water connection Page 197
Page 198
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL to the combined sewer. LDP2 Policy 61 seeks to ensure that development proposals manage all rain and surface water through sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), which should form part of and integrate with proposed and existing blue-green infrastructure. All SuDS features should be in accordance with the Principles of The SuDS Manual (C753). LDP2 Policy 62 relates to Drainage Impact Assessments and it states that developers will require to demonstrate that all development proposals incorporate proposals for SuDS measures in accordance with technical guidance. In association with applications for certain categories of development, a Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA) should be submitted and one of these categories involves the erection of six or more new dwellinghouses. Assessment The application has been accompanied by a ‘Drainage, SuDS and Surface Water Management Plan’ prepared by Harley Haddow in November 2023 and revised in June 2024. A summary of the main points is as follows: ▪ A review of the SEPA interactive flood maps indicates that the development is not at risk of any fluvial (river), pluvial (surface water) or coastal flooding whilst a brief review of the Future Flood Maps on the SEPA Flood Map Data also shows that there is no future risk of river or coastal flooding at this point. No other information has been found at this time to indicate that the development is at risk of flooding from any other sources. ▪ Surface water discharge for the proposed development is set to enter the combined sewer that runs along Ballochgoy Road and Prospect Terrace with an individual connection for each dwelling. Surface water will be treated using porous paving before exiting the site boundary and connecting into the existing Scottish Water network. ▪ SuDS are a sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a more sustainable fashion than “conventional” techniques. The requirement for SuDS to account for the quantity and quality of surface water is an intrinsic part of the planning process and all new developments. The SuDS proposal for this site involves conveying the surface water run-off from roofs to the proposed outfall via down pipes and gravity surface water drainage. Surface water flows from hard standing areas will be conveyed via gullies and permeable paving. The treatment will be provided by a proposed at source permeable paving, filter areas to treat roof and carriageway runoff. SuDS proposals for this development have been designed in accordance with the SuDS Manual C753. ▪ Maintenance of SuDS systems should be carried out in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines and the SuDS Manual C753. A proposed SuDS maintenance strategy is proposed in the Harley Haddow report and should be implemented by Fyne Homes through a suitable maintenance contact or factoring agreement. In their consultation response, Scottish Water have stated that, for reasons of sustainability and to protect customers from potential sewer flooding, there are only limited exceptional circumstances where they would allow surface water connection into a combined sewer. These would be for brownfield sites where there was significant justification from the customer (i.e. developer) taking into account various factors including legal, physical and technical challenges. Page 198
Page 199
Report of Handling Template for PPSL and Delegated Planning Applications – Updated 08.03.2023 Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Water advocate that they should be contacted by developers at the earliest opportunity (prior to submitting a connection request) with strong evidence to support the intended drainage plan. A robust assessment is then carried out and a decision is provided that reflects the best option from environmental and customer perspectives. In subsequent correspondence with Harley Haddow consultants, it has been confirmed that a full application has been progressed with Scottish Water, which is at Technical Approval stage and is based on the drainage proposals identified in their ‘Surface Water Management Plan’ document. They have advised that this is awaiting the client progressing with the Technical Approval and they are likely to be holding off until they hear more regarding a decision on the Planning application. Circular 4/1998 provides information and guidance on the use of conditions in Planning Permissions and it explains that, in cases where outcomes are required to facilitate the implementation of a development and they need the consent or authorisation of a third party, it may be possible to achieve this by attaching a condition that is worded in a negative form, prohibiting any development taking place until the specified action has been taken. It also refers to case law where it was established that “the mere fact that a desirable condition, worded in a negative form, appears to have no reasonable prospects of fulfilment does not mean that Planning Permission need necessarily be refused as a matter of law. Thus, while an authority will continue to have regard to all relevant factors affecting a planning application and whether it should be granted with or without conditions, there is no longer a legal requirement to satisfy a reasonable prospects test in respect of any negative condition they may decide to impose”. In respect of the current application, therefore, even if there were “no reasonable prospects” that Scottish Water would allow surface water connection to the combined public sewer, it is considered that the appropriate approach is to attach a negatively-worded suspensive condition that prevents development from commencing until such time as written evidence has been submitted confirming authorisation from Scottish Water. If it wasn’t ultimately possible for the developer to obtain this authorisation but an appropriate on-site surface water system was subsequently devised that didn’t result in a substantial change to the approved development, an application would then have to be submitted to either remove or revise the wording of the condition. If the proposal needed to be significantly revised in order to accommodate an on-site system, a fresh application for Planning Permission is highly likely to be needed. On the basis of the foregoing, and subject to a suitably-worded safeguarding condition and informative note, the proposed development is considered to accord with the Policies that are referred to in the paragraphs above. Page 199
Page 200
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 201
Site Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2009. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No.100023368, 2010. ° Date: 04.09.24 Location Plan relative to 24/00564/PP Erection of 8 affordable dwellinghouses and formation of vehicular access, Vacant land at junction of Ballochgoy Road and Blain Terrace, Rothesay Scale: 1:1,250Drawn By: kmk Page 201
Page 202
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 203
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: 24/01153/PP Planning Hierarchy: Local Applicant: Ms Liz Maxwell Proposal: Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of replacement dwellinghouse and associated works Site Address: Comraich, Mannal, Isle of Tiree DECISION ROUTE ☐Delegated - Sect 43 (A) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 ☒Committee - Local Government Scotland Act 1973 (A) THE APPLICATION (i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission • Erection of dwellinghouse • Installation of septic tank • Formation of parking spaces (ii) Other specified operations • Demolition of dwellinghouse • Connection to public water main (B) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons appended to this report. (C) CONSULTATIONS: Argyll and Bute Council – Roads Authority Report dated 03/07/24 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition being imposed on the grant of permission to secure parking and turning for 2 vehicles. Argyll and Bute Council – Conservation Officer Letter dated 19/07/24 advising, in summary, no objection to the proposed development. The detailed comments submitted by the Conservation Officer are Page 203 Agenda Item 8
Page 204
discussed in detail in the main assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. Argyll and Bute Council – Environmental Health Service No response at time of report. Scottish Water Letter dated 05/07/24 advising no objection to the proposed development which would be served from the Tiree Water Treatment Works. Scottish Water further advise that there is no public waste water infrastructure within the vicinity of the site and therefore private arrangements will be required. Tiree Community Council Letter dated 19/08/24 advising that the Community Council has agreed to support the application, stating that they are following the Community Council’s mission statement to grow the resident population of the island. They further advise that this reflects the view of those who commented who are on the island’s electoral roll who supported the application. Consultation responses are published in full on the planning application file and are available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (D) HISTORY: 23/01717/PP Demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of replacement dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and formation of parking spaces – Pending Consideration 23/00133/PP Demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of replacement dwellinghouse, installation of septic tank and air source heat pump – Withdrawn: 18/04/23 (E) PUBLICITY: The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 and Neighbour Notification procedures, overall closing date 01/08/24. (F) REPRESENTATIONS: At the time of writing, representations had been received from 39 respondents in relation to this planning application. 25 respondents raise objection and 14 provide support. OBJECTION Mrs Julie Bissell, High House, Halstead Road, Sible Hedingham, C09 3RJ (26/07/24) Caroline Stickland – by e-mail only (20/07/24) Lucy Campbell – by e-mail only (19/07/24) James Maxwell – by e-mail only (19/07/24) Catriona Stickland – by e-mail only (18/07/24) Mr Andrew Payne, 6 Jellicoe Gardens, Cardiff (17/07/24) Miss Carol Wilson, 29 Loudon Gardens, Renfrewshire, PA58 HB (16/07/24) Page 204
Page 205
J.E. Guest, Tyddyn Grugor, Llangoed, Anglesey, LL58 8SD (15/07/24) Mr Christopher Stickland, 0/2 8 Whitefield Road, Glasgow, G51 2YD (14/07/24) Mrs Sara Mason, Lane Cottage, Amberley, Stroud, GL5 5AB (14/07/24) Gary Nicholson – by e-mail only (12/07/24) V. Caratozzolo – by e-mail only (11/07/24) Mrs Jennifer Trevillion, Shionnachan, Inverness, IV6 (11/07/24) Mr William Colvin, Shionnachan, Stratnacro, Drumnadrochit, IV6 (11/07/24) Mrs Roberta Lang, 59 Union Street, Kirkintilloch, G66 1DL (11/07/24) Robert (Bob) Stickland – by e-mail only (10/07/24, 22/07/24, 14/08/24 & 21/08/24) Hardip Devsi – by e-mail only (10/07/24) Russet J. Fullarton, Bayview, Scarinish, Isle of Tiree (10/07/24) Gurmeet Ghatoray, 3 Smith Gardens, Bishopbriggs, G64 1FJ (10/07/24) Martin Shields, Ballagan Lodge, Strathblane, G63 9AE (10/07/24) Mrs Kathleen White, 1 Free Street, Ilchester, BA22 8LY (10/07/24) Doctor Alan K.Stone – by e-mail only (09/07/24) Mrs Stone – by e-mail only (09/07/24) Mrs Gurpal Stickland – by e-mail only (09/07/24) William Stickland – by e-mail only (08/07/24) SUPPORT Mrs Kate Maccallum, 17 Balevullin, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6XD (22/07/24) Monica Smith, 14 Crossapol, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UP (30/07/24) Mr Stuart Smith, 14 Kenovay, Crossapol, Isle of Tiree (25/07/24) Mr Calum MacLean, Sgarbh Cleit View, Mannal, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UB (23/07/24) Mrs Jackie Jones, Taobh-na-Mara, Balemartine, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UA (23/07/24) Ms Christine Murray, Sgoire Brrac, Dungarthill, Dunkeld, PH8 OJE (19/07/24) Mrs Alison Clark, Mannal House, Mannal, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UB (19/07/24) Mr David Clark, Mannal House, Mannal, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UB (19/07/24) Mrs Christina Milne, 1 Pier View, Scarinish, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6AB (18/07/24) Mrs Catriona Cowling, Clachan-Dubh, Barrapoll, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6XJ (18/07/24) Mrs Anne Forsyth, Burnside, Mannal, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UB (18/07/24) Mrs Fiona Green, 5 Mannal, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UB (18/07/24) Mrs Gillian Steel, 6 Lochside Avenue, Bishopton, PA7 5FZ (14/07/24) Mr Colin Donald, Iona View, Crossapol, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UP (13/07/24) 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. The applicant’s Agent has submitted a detailed response to the objections received. This document is titled ‘CH1087 Response Letter’ and is dated 15th August (received 16th August) and is also available to view via the Public Access section of the Council’s website. (i) Summary of issues raised – Objection Siting, Design and Finishes of the Development • ‘Comraich’ and ‘Myrtle Bank’ are two traditional blackhouse style cottages connected to each other via a party wall that would require to be demolished which would ruin the overall appearance and the character of the two buildings which, together, form an aesthetically pleasing pairing which contribute immensely to the overall character of the area. Page 205
Page 206
• Should permission be granted, the special character of these two traditional semi-detached and historically important properties would be lost and the visual appearance of ‘Myrtle Bank’ adversely affected. • The footprint of the proposed dwellinghouse is significantly larger than that of ‘Comraich’ as currently existing. • The proposal incorporates metal roofs, in two different colours, which are not in keeping with the traditional felt found on surrounding buildings. • The proposed patio windows to the front of the property are not a traditional feature found in surrounding buildings. • Whilst the proposed ‘traditional’ part matches the ridge height of ‘Myrtle Bank’ the roof ridge line of the contemporary part does not. The ridge height of the contemporary part is approximately 1.4 metres higher than ‘Myrtle Bank’ making ‘Myrtle Bank’ look insignificant. • The contemporary part is also considerably higher than all the immediate surrounding properties of ‘Seaview’, ‘Stevie’s Cottage’, ‘The Sheiling’ and ‘Taobh na Mara’. • The size and height of the proposed building will have an adverse impact on the character of the existing traditional properties in Mannal which will be tainted and the area degraded. • A perfectly liveable property, for permanent occupation, could be built, there is no reason for it to be so large. A different design that is smaller and much more in keeping with its neighbour, ‘Myrtle Bank’, should be produced. • The previous renovations of ‘Myrtle Bank’ demonstrate that repair, in a sustainable and environmentally responsible form, is possible on the existing footprint. • Whilst there is support for the redevelopment of ‘Comraich’ to provide a property for permanent occupation, the overall scale, design and finishing materials proposed in the current application are out of keeping with the area failing to reflect the historic appearance of the original cottage and the surrounding blackhouses. • The proposal is contrary to Local and National Planning Policy. Officer Comment: These comments are noted by the Planning Officers. The proposal is fully assessed against the relevant Local and National Planning Policy in the assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. Procedural Issues / Conservation Officer Consultation Comments • Planning Officers state, in an e-mail to the agent on 25/04/24 that unless the previous application (23/01717/PP) is changed it would be recommended for refusal. Page 206
Page 207
Since that time, the application has been changed, however the proposal has been made significantly larger than before. The footprint of the latest proposal has been increased from 110sqm to a much larger 129 sqm. There is confusion over the Conservation Officers acceptance of the current scheme, when previously the mass and height of the proposal were such important issues. It bears little resemblance to the existing building, being considerably larger, and even bigger after the conservation officer’s attempt to be helpful by increasing the footprint to allow a single storey option. It is totally out of place with the surrounding properties and still dwarfing ‘Myrtle Bank’. • No documented evidence exists to suggest that the Planning Department or Conservation Officer would agree to the development proposed in the current application. Officer Comment: It is not uncommon for two planning applications to run in tandem. Should permission for the current proposal be granted, the previous application is expected to be withdrawn. Verbal discussions took place between Planning Officers, Conservation Officer and Agent which informed the design solution proposed in the current application. The design is discussed in more detail in the main assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. The comments relating to the comparative sizes and massing of the existing dwellinghouse, the original proposal and the current proposal are somewhat misleading. The existing dwellinghouse has a footprint area of 72.8 square metres with all of the internal accommodation contained on the ground floor level. The previously submitted application (undetermined and expected to be withdrawn depending upon the outcome of the current application) proposed a replacement three bedroom dwellinghouse with a footprint area of 110 square metres and with accommodation within the roof void above almost the entirety of the ground floor area. The current application, the subject of this report, proposes a three bedroom dwellinghouse with a slightly larger 121 square metre footprint but with a narrower gable and the first floor accommodation limited to part of the roof void such that a substantial part of the proposed dwellinghouse now has a lower ridge height to match that of the adjacent cottage ‘Myrtle Bank’. Building and Construction Standards Relating to Demolition • Whilst the cottage is in a poor state, it is not at risk of collapse. The existing stone walls are not in any works state than those at ‘Myrtle Bank’ were when it was renovated a number of years ago. • The current proposal will require complete demolition, separation and rebuilding, which will have an adverse impact on the structural stability of ‘Myrtle Bank’. • There is lack of detail as to how the demolition of ‘Comraich’ will affect ‘Myrtle Bank’, therefore, should planning permission be granted, the following conditions should be imposed: Page 207
Page 208
“The finished gable end wall of Myrtle Bank should include sloping hips which slope away from the roof at the chimney end, similar to the existing building. The end wall should be made to be structurally sound and wind and watertight and the finished gable end wall should be smooth rendered with waterproof render to match the existing cottage. The loss of material at the join between the two properties should be professionally assessed and replaced with, at the very least, the thermal equivalent in the newly separated wall of ‘Myrtle Bank’. Demolition will cause noise, nuisance, and possible danger to the inhabitants of ‘Myrtle Bank’ and surrounding properties, therefore, this work should be undertaken between the months of October and March when it may be arranged for ‘Myrtle Bank’ to be unoccupied to minimise risk. The gap between the new end wall of ‘Myrtle Bank’ and the new end wall of ‘Comraich’ should be sufficient to allow routine maintenance and painting of the end wall of ‘Myrtle Bank’. Stonework and debris should be taken off site and not 'dumped' on the beach with the footpath kept intact and clear”. • Building and construction standards relating to the demolition of the property and the appropriate financial and legal allowances would require to be considered to mitigate any structural defects of the remaining property. • Comraich provides support to ‘Myrtle Bank’, therefore, details are required to show how mitigation are, or will be, in place to ensure that the remaining property’s gable wall will be supplemented with support to secure its long term integrity. • A Structural Engineers SCR design certificate will act as a suitable liability for the design of new property and the protection of the remaining property. • Architect and structural engineer liabilities should be clearly articulated with a clear indication of the routes to litigation for any potential issues within 5 years of completion. • After demolition, appropriate measures would require to be put in place to ensure that Myrtle Bank remains wind and water tight. Officer Comment: The points relating to demolition will be fully considered by the Council’s Building Standards Services at the time when a Demolition Warrant is applied for. The applicant will require to ensure that any demolition is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Building Standards Service and it will be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that ‘Myrtle Bank’ remains wind and water tight throughout any development. Page 208
Page 209
Furthermore, during the Building Warrant process for the replacement dwellinghouse, there will be the requirement for a Structural Engineers Certificate to be submitted which will address details regarding separation, making good the existing wall and details of temporary support measures required during the construction period. The above details will all require to be agreed with the Building Standards Service prior to any works commencing on the development. Legal Issues • The title deeds of both properties would need to be updated to ensure that boundaries and access rights are defined. • The applicant proposing the new property should surrender the land adjoining ‘Myrtle Bank’ by at least 1.5 to 2 metres. This would enable maintenance of the ‘Myrtle Bank’ gable wall and for sufficient space for scaffolding and other maintenance equipment. • All legal costs should be met by the applicant. Officer Comment: Legal issues relating to land ownership and changes to title deeds do not represent material planning considerations, these are separate civil issues outwith the planning process to be addressed between affected parties. Impact on Neighbouring Properties • The proposal will have an adverse impact on the desirability for people to stay in many of the properties in Mannal which are let out as self-catering properties, particularly during the demolition and construction period. • The proposal would not be visually pleasing when viewed from within ‘Stevie’s Cottage’ and ‘Seaview’. Officer Comment: The proposed development is considered acceptable to the site and its immediate surroundings and has been developed in consultation with the Council’s conservation officer. Biodiversity • The proposal, by virtue of its increased footprint and proposed parking area, will disrupt existing biodiversity unnecessarily. Officer Comment: The proposed development is situated within a ‘brownfield’ site where there are no current biodiversity issues. Should permission be granted, a condition is proposed to secure biodiversity enhancement and protection measures proportionate to the scale of development proposed. Location of Septic Tank • The septic tank is unfavourably close to the public access to the local beach. Page 209
Page 210
Officer Comment: The application proposes to replace the existing septic tank, in the same position. The Council’s Building Standards Service will apply sufficient control over the detailed arrangements of the septic tank and soakaway to ensure no amenity or health issue arises. Historic Environment Scotland (HES) • HES were in the past insistent that the traditional structures should be retained. • Although not listed, ‘Comraich’ and ‘Myrtle Bank’ are subject to a live listing proposal currently with HES for consideration. Officer Comment: Whilst these comments are noted, the dwellinghouse is not currently a Listed Building and HES have advised that they will not consider the building for potential listing given the current planning application. Nevertheless, given the historic nature of the property, comments were sought from the Council’s Conservation Officer, details of which are discussed in the assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. Condition of Existing Building • Section 5 of the Design Statement is an admission of guilt that the property has been deliberately left in a state of disrepair to ensure that it becomes uninhabitable. The Council have powers under the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, Planning (Scotland) Act 2019, Local Development Plan Policies and Enforcement Notices to ensure buildings are maintained. Officer Comment: The property in question is not a Listed Building and therefore the Planning Authority does not have any formal method of ensuring that the building is kept in an appropriate manner. Planning Officers are not in a position to comment on the Building (Scotland) Act 2003. Important Tourist Destination • Mannal is an important tourist destination and the proposal, if approved, would introduce a large, grotesque structure, not in keeping with the area and making Mannal a less desirable place for people to stay. Officer Comment: This comment is noted by Planning Officers. Tiree is also, primarily, a place of permanent residence and work with one of the key outcomes of both local and national planning policy being to secure appropriate sustainable growth and to reverse population decline to address the nationwide ‘housing emergency’. The visual impact of the proposed development is fully assessed in the main assessment of the proposal with Appendix A of this report. (ii) Summary of issues raised – Support Page 210
Page 211
• Out of the 18 properties in Mannal, only 3 are occupied by permanent residents. • The proposal is to provide a new home for a family wishing to return to live on Tiree, on the site of the original family home lived in by the same family since it was first constructed and who are unable to do so due to the dwellinghouse in its current state being uninhabitable and in need of rebuilding. • For the dwellinghouse to be suitable for permanent occupation, rather than a holiday home, then of course the footprint needs to be bigger. • The balance of permanent homes needs to be addressed, Tiree needs more people living on the island full time without obstacles being put in their way. • Should people choose not to visit Mannal as a result of this proposal, then so be it, it is much more preferable to have permanent residents living in habitable buildings and consequently making a positive contribution to the island. • It is hard to accept that comments from people who come to the island for a couple of weeks a year can affect the choices of people who wish to live on the island permanently. • The proposal will enhance the village of Mannal where there is a wide variety of designs, not all of traditional appearance. • Change shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing, especially if it repopulates an island with permanent residents. • The proposal will provide a more modern version and evolution of Tiree townships seen throughout the island. • Some of the objectors to the application have no connection with Tiree and have been canvassed to complain by one individual, something which is considered to be unfair, unacceptable and irrelevant. • It is hoped that timing of the building will be allowed to take place whenever the weather allows, after all it is just a temporary inconvenience to surrounding dwellings. • Regarding the concerns about the wall and chimney of ‘Myrtle Bank’ could this have anything to do with the amount of wall being removed to accommodate a multi fuel stove? • It is noted that no residents of Mannal have objected to the application. Officer Comment: These expressions of support are noted by Planning Officers. The siting and design of the proposed development is fully assessed against the relevant planning policies in the assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. Page 211
Page 212
(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 A Design Statement has been submitted in support of the proposed development which is discussed in more detail in the main assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. (iv) Sustainability Checklists (with reference to the requirements of LDP2 Policy 04) TN06 Sustainability Checklist TN07 Sustainable Buildings Checklist The relevant Sustainability Checklists have been submitted and examined. It is the assessment of the Case Officer that the applicant has understood and given adequate consideration to the sustainability aspects of the proposed development, sufficient to accord with the core sustainability requirements of both national and local planning policy, specifically the relevant details of the ‘Sustainable Places’ group of policies within NPF4 and LDP2 policies 04, 08 and 09. ☒Yes ☐No ☒Yes ☐No (v) A report on the impact of the proposed development e.g. Retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ☐Yes ☒No (H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS Is a Section 75 agreement required: ☐Yes ☒No (I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ☐Yes ☒No Page 212
Page 213
(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 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 11 – Energy NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport Liveable Places NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management 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 Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Connected Places Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 43 – Safeguarding of Aerodromes Sustainable Communities Page 213
Page 214
Policy 60 – Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 63 – Waste Related Development and Waste Management Homes for People Policy 67 – Provision of Housing to Meet Local Needs Including Affordable Housing High Quality Environment Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 74 – Development Impact of Sites International and National Importance Policy 75 – Development Impact of Sites on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013. • Third Party Representations • Consultation Reponses • Planning History • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • ABC draft Technical Note – Argyll and Bute Windows (April 2018) • ABC Isle of Tiree Sustainable Design Guidance • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Housing Needs and Demand Assessment • ABC Housing Emergency Statement (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: • How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process. Page 214
Page 215
• The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance. At the time of writing, representations have been received from 39 respondents in relation to this planning application. 25 respondents raise objection and 14 submit support. The main thrust of objection relate to the scale, design and finishes of the proposed development. The agent has worked closely with Planning Officers and the Conservation Officer to secure a mutually acceptable design which is sympathetic to the site and its surroundings. It is the opinion of Planning Officers that the representations received, together with officer assessment of the relevant planning issues contained within this report, provide all the information required to enable Members to make an informed decision based on all of the material planning considerations in this case. In this instance it is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling and it is not considered that a discretionary local hearing would add value to the planning process. The determining factor in the assessment of this application is whether the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of the adopted National Planning Framework 4 and Local Development Plan 2 and whether the issues raised by third parties raise material considerations of sufficient significance to withhold planning permission. In this instance the proposed development is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both National and Local Planning Policy whilst helping to address the locally and nationally declared ‘housing emergency’. A full report is provided within Appendix A. (O)(i) Key Constraints/Designations Affected by the Development: Adjacent to, but outwith: • Sleibhtean agus Cladach Thiriodh (Tiree Wetlands and Coast) SPA • Sleibhtean agus Cladach Thiriodh (Tiree Wetlands and Coast) RAMSAR • Sleibhtean agus Cladach Thiriodh (Tiree Wetlands and Coast) SSSI (O)(ii) Soils Agricultural Land Classification: Class 4.2 - Land capable of producing a narrow range of crops, primarily on grassland with short arable breaks of forage crops. Peatland/Carbon Rich Soils Classification: ☐Class 1 ☐Class 2 ☐Class 3 Page 215
Page 216
☒N/A Peat Depth Classification: N/A Does the development relate to croft land? ☐Yes ☒No Would the development restrict access to croft or better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A Would the development result in fragmentation of croft / better quality agricultural land? ☐Yes ☐No ☒N/A (O)(iii) Woodland Will the proposal result in loss of trees/woodland? (If yes, detail in summary assessment) ☐Yes ☒No 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 (P) Summary assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDP2, the site is identified as being within the defined Settlement Area of Balemartine on the proposals maps where LDP2 Policy 01 states that development will normally be acceptable subject to a number of criteria. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse, ‘Comraich’ to allow for the redevelopment of the site with a purpose built dwellinghouse. The detailed siting, design and finishes of the proposed dwellinghouse are considered acceptable and are discussed in detail in the main assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. An existing vehicular access is to be utilised to serve the proposed development with the formation of two parking spaces. Water supply is via connection to the public water main and foul drainage is by way of a septic tank and soakaway due to the lack of public infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. All access, parking and infrastructure matters are considered acceptable and are discussed in detail in the main assessment of the proposal within Appendix A of this report. Page 216
Page 217
The proposal has elicited 25 objections and 14 expressions of support. The key factor in the assessment of this application is whether or not the replacement dwellinghouse is of an appropriate scale, design and finishes which respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of scale, massing, design and finishing materials and whether it is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy. It is the opinion of Planning Officers that the design proposed for the replacement dwellinghouse pays appropriate regard to the characteristics of the area within which it proposed to ensure no significant adverse impact arises and the proposal is considered to accord with the provisions of the current Development Plan and with national planning policy. Taking account of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions appended to this report. A full report is provided within Appendix A. (Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: ☒Yes ☐No (R) Reasons why Planning Permission Should be Granted: The proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, and there are no other material considerations of sufficient significance, including issues raised by third parties, to indicate that it would be appropriate to withhold planning permission having regard to Section 25 of the Act. (S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan N/A (T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Environment Scotland: ☐Yes ☒No Author of Report: Tim Williams Date: 26/08/24 Reviewing Officer: Peter Bain Date: 04.09.2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development & Economic Growth Page 217
Page 218
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 24/01153/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 19/06/24, 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 CH1087 – AECO – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 2000 05 20/06/24 Site Plan as Proposed CH1087 – AECO – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 2001 07 20/06/24 Site Plan as Existing CH1087 – AECO – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 2002 05 20/06/24 Floor Plans as Proposed CH1087 – AECO – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 2004 07 20/06/24 Elevations as Proposed CH1087 – AECO – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 2005 02 20/06/24 Street Elevation as Proposed CH1087 – AECO – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 2006 03 20/06/24 Sections as Proposed CH1087 – AECO – XX – ZZ – DR – A – 2007 02 20/06/24 Design Statement – 10 Pages 20/06/24 Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in accordance with the approved details. 2. PP – 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. Reason: In order to comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 16F. 3. PP – 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 Page 218
Page 219
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. PP – Submission of Sample Materials Notwithstanding the effect of Condition 1, no development shall commence until samples of the proposed roofing materials to be used in the proposed development 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. 5. PP - Electric Vehicle Charging – Residential with off street parking Prior to the commencement of the development (or such other timescale as may be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority), a scheme detailing the provision of a minimum 7kw electric vehicle charging point shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Where charging cannot be provided then the appropriate ducting to future proof the property must be installed. The approved charging point, or where relevant, the approved cable ducting shall be installed in full prior to the first occupation of the development, and thereafter retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the planning authority Reason: to comply with the provisions of NPF4 Policy 13 Sustainable Transport and LDP2 Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging. 6. PP – Biodiversity Statement No development shall commence until 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 has been submitted and agreed in writing with the Planning Authority. 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. The biodiversity statement should refer to Developing with Nature guidance | NatureScot as appropriate. Reason: To comply with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 3. Page 219
Page 220
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 24/01153/PP PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT 1. Introduction 1.1. The proposal the subject of this application is seeking to secure planning permission for the demolition of a dwellinghouse and the erection of a replacement dwellinghouse together with the formation of two parking spaces and the installation of a septic tank and soakaway. 2. Settlement Strategy 2.1. In terms of the Settlement Strategy set out in the adopted LDP2, the site is identified as being within the defined Settlement Area of Balemartine on the proposals maps where LDP2 Policy 01 states that development will normally be acceptable subject to compliance with a number of criteria. The main criteria within Policy 01 which are applicable to the proposal the subject of the current application are: • It is 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 • It complies with all relevant LDP2 policies. In order to address the determining issues, the key considerations in this application are: 2.1.1. Compliance with the Development Plan and other relevant planning policy 2.1.2. Any other material considerations. 3. Proposal 3.1. The proposal is seeking to secure planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse, ‘Comraich’ to allow for the redevelopment of the site with a purpose built dwellinghouse. ‘Comraich’ as existing is a traditionally designed and proportioned, single storey, curved roof black top structure which forms a semi-detached pairing with ‘Myrtle Bank’ which has a slightly higher ridge. Both dwellinghouses are finished in white painted stone with black felt roofs with both incorporating external chimney stacks to each of their gable ends. Whilst ‘Comraich’ and ‘Myrtle Bank’ are referred to as semi-detached structures, they are not semi-detached structures in the traditional sense as they do not share a party wall, each dwellinghouse has their own wall which adjoin each other. Page 220
Page 221
The dwellinghouse is situated within a small cluster of well preserved and maintained black top dwellinghouses of various sizes, some of which have been sympathetically renovated, including the neighbouring dwellinghouse ‘Myrtle Bank’. The Design Statement (DS) submitted with the application details that the existing structure of Comraich is in a poor physical state and is at risk of collapse. The DS details that the wooden roof structure shows evidence of years of structural decay, water damage, and insect damage, with photographic evidence submitted in support of this claim. The DS suggests that the majority of properties in Mannal are second homes and holiday homes which are not permanently occupied throughout the year, with the current proposal allowing a permanent resident, originally from Mannal, to move back to the island, which would be a significant benefit to the community and the local economy. Whilst ‘Comraich’ is not a Listed Building or located within a ‘Conservation Area’, it nevertheless an old traditional building and accordingly, in order to inform in the assessment of the proposal, consultation was undertaken with the Conservation Officer (CO). The proposal the subject of this current application has come forward as a result of concerns raised by the CO during the processing of the previous planning application submitted for the proposed development, reference 23/01717/PP, which remains undetermined by the Planning Authority. If the current application is approved the earlier one will be withdrawn. The CO deemed the design proposed in the previous application to be insensitive to the character and appearance of the area not only in terms of its ridge height but also the deep plan. As a result of the concerns raised by the CO the agent has worked closely with the CO and Planning Officers to achieve a mutually acceptable design which has been brought forward in the current application. In order to break up the massing proposed in the previous submission, the current application proposes two distinct elements, one single storey and the other 2 storey. The single storey element is traditionally designed and proportioned sited immediately adjacent to Myrtle Bank where it broadly lines through in terms of its roof and eaves. The two storey element is set back from the single storey element where it is sufficiently separated from Myrtle Bank and, whilst higher than Myrtle Bank, shares a similar ridge height with other buildings in the area. The barn-style roof proposed to the two storey element introduces a very distinctive form to the area, which the CO deems to be slightly awkward in design. However, as the roof form of the single storey element is similar to what is existing, the CO deems that the proposal would not detract from the area and that the characteristics of the built environment would generally be preserved. The CO further notes that the use of modern materials at the single storey part such as the metal roof, is in some ways regrettable as the traditional black top character is lost, it does allow legibility between the old and new (Myrtle Bank and Comraich) and as per LDP2 Policy 10, embodies “honesty and legibility of contemporary design”. Page 221
Page 222
The siting, design and finishing materials of the proposed dwellinghouse are assessed against the relevant Development Plan Policies below. An existing vehicular access is to be utilised to serve the proposed development with the formation of two parking spaces. Water supply is via connection to the public water main and foul drainage is by way of a septic tank and soakaway due to the lack of public drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. 4. Compliance with National and Local Development Plan 2 Policy Argyll and Bute ‘Local Development Plan 2’ (LDP2) was adopted on 28 February 2024 which, together with NPF4 which was adopted on 13 February 2023, represent the Development Plan providing the policy background against which proposed developments are assessed. The proposal is assessed against the relevant NPF4 Policies below which include details of the associated LDP2 policies. 4.1. NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises NPF4 Policy 1 seeks to prioritise the climate and nature crises in all decisions; it requires to be applied together with other policies in NPF4. Guidance from the Scottish Government advises that it is for the decision maker to determine whether the significant weight to be applied tips the balance in favour for, or against a proposal on the basis of its positive or negative contribution to climate and nature crises. 4.2. NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate, Mitigation and Adaption NPF4 Policy 2 seeks to ensure that new development proposals will be sited to minimise lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as far as possible, and that proposals will be sited and designed to adapt to current and future risks from climate change. Guidance from the Scottish Government confirms that at present there is no single accepted methodology for calculating and / or minimising emissions. The emphasis is on minimising emissions as far as possible, rather than eliminating emissions. The Spatial Settlement Strategy set out within LDP2 seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements as these are where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found, however LDP2 recognises that there are instances where a different approach to significant development has to be taken particularly where existing infrastructure or services are at capacity and where a more sustainable option would be to provide new facilities elsewhere. 4.3. NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 3 seeks to protect biodiversity, reverse biodiversity loss and deliver positive effects from development and strengthen nature networks. With regards to the need in NPF4 Policy 3 to secure biodiversity improvements, it is not considered that there are any issues of compliance with Policy 3. No material biodiversity impacts have been identified in the assessment of this application by the Planning Officers and no specific proposals for biodiversity improvements have been submitted. Page 222
Page 223
Tiree is known for its careful treatment of landscaping with most buildings sitting unassumingly on the machair with no structured or manicured landscaping with coastal sand dunes and grasslands a feature of the island. Notwithstanding this, it is still considered that an element of biodiversity enhancement and protection, proportionate to the scale of development proposed can be secured for the site by way of planning condition which will be attached to any grant of permission. With such a condition, the proposed development aligns with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 3 and LDP2 Policy 73, Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity. 4.4. NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural Places NPF4 Policy 4 seeks to protect, restore and enhance natural assets making best use of nature-based solutions. The proposed development is not within a National Park, a National Scenic Area, National Nature Reserve nor is it within an area identified as Wild Land. The site is however partially within Sléibhtean agus Cladach Thiriodh (Tiree Wetland and Coast) Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and adjacent to the Tiree (Corncrake) SPA. Whilst NatureScot did not provide comments to this application, during the processing of the previous application, for the same site, they advised that, in their view, as the proposal is seeking to demolish and rebuild an existing development, located within the settlement of Mannal, where the site does not have a suitable habitat for waders, geese or corncrake, it is unlikely that the proposal will have a significant effect on these natural heritage interests of national importance. NatureScot concluded that an Appropriate Assessment was not required and raised no objection to the proposed development. The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with NPF4 Policy 4 and does not conflict with the provisions of LDP2 Policy 74, Development Impact on Sites of International Importance and Policy 75, Development Impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and National Nature Reserves and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.5. NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 7 seeks to protect and enhance historic environment assets and places, and to enable positive change as a catalyst for the regeneration of places. Whilst ‘Comraich’ is not a Listed Building or located within a Conservation Area, it is an old traditional building and accordingly consideration requires to be given to Part (a) of Policy 7 which seeks development proposals with a potentially significant impact on historic assets or places, to be accompanied by an assessment which is based on an understanding of the cultural significance of the historic asset and/or place. The assessment should identify the likely visual or physical impact of any proposals for change, including cumulative effects and provide a sound basis for managing the impacts of change. LDP2 Policy 15 provides protection for non-designated heritage assets, and states that development proposals will not be acceptable where they fail to “protect, preserve, conserve or enhance the special characteristics and/or cultural significance of the historic built environment in terms of its location, scale, form, design or proposed use”. Page 223
Page 224
As detailed at Section 3 above, the proposal the subject of the current application has come forward as a result of the concerns raised by the CO to the previous submission with the agent working closely with the CO and Planning Officers to achieve a mutually acceptable design. In her response to the proposal, the CO notes that the building is not listed (with Historic Environment Scotland not willing to intervene as long as there is an ongoing planning process on the site), nor is the building in a Conservation Area, therefore there is nothing to prevent the demolition of Comraich and therefore the loss of the historic relationship between the two buildings. The CO is satisfied that the design solution the subject of the current application, which is discussed in more detail at Section 4.9 below, will not detract from the characteristic of the built environment. The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 7 and LDP2 Policy 15, Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built Environment. 4.6. NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings NPF4 Policy 9 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the reuse of brownfield, vacant and derelict land and empty buildings, and to help reduce the need for greenfield development. Part (a) of Policy 9 states that development proposals that will result in the sustainable reuse of brownfield land including vacant and derelict land and buildings, whether permanent or temporary, will be supported. Whilst Part (d) of NPF4 Policy 9 notes the need to conserve embodied energy in order to give significant weight to the climate emergency as required by NPF4 Policies 1 and 2, and sets out that demolition will be the least preferred option, it does not expressly prohibit it. In this regard, as the existing building is not currently a Listed Building, or situated within a Conservation Area it does not benefit from any statutory protection which would prevent its demolition. The development proposed by this application is considered to be on a brownfield site by virtue of the fact that it is a proposal seeking to demolish and existing building and erect a replacement building. The proposal represents the sustainable reuse of brownfield land directly supported by NPF4 Policy 9(a) and Policy 01 of LDP2 which defines the site as being within the Settlement Area of Mannal and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.7. NPF4 Policy 12 – Zero Waste NPF4 Policy 12 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate development that is consistent with the waste hierarchy as defined within the policy document. The development the subject of this planning application seeks to secure permission for the demolition of an existing dwellinghouse and erection of a replacement dwellinghouse. Whilst this is a development likely to generate waste when operational, it will already Page 224
Page 225
benefit from regular waste uplifts by the Council and will be expected to comply with our adopted and enforced recycling and reuse strategy. The proposed development is considered to be in compliance with NPF4 Policy 12 and does not conflict with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 63, Waste Related Development and Waste Management which seek to ensure that effective provision for waste/recycling is provided within developments and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.8. NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 13 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate developments that prioritise walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport for everyday travel and reduce the need to travel unsustainably. The application is seeking to secure permission for the demolition of an existing dwellinghouse and erection of a replacement dwellinghouse, a development which is not considered to be a significant travel generating use or a proposal where it is considered important to monitor travel patterns resulting from the development. Part (b) of Policy 12 requires consideration of the sustainable travel hierarchies including provision for vehicles and cycle charging points. A condition is recommended to secure an ev charging point. The application shows the existing access spurring from the B8066 Heylipol-Hynish public road utilised to serve the proposed development with two parking spaces provided adjacent to the proposed dwellinghouse to which the Roads Authority has raised no objection. The proposed development is consistent with the broad aims of NPF4 Policy 13 and is consistent with the requirements of LDP2 Policy 34 – Electric Vehicle Charging, Policy 37, Development Utilising an Existing Private Access and Policy 40, Vehicle Parking Provision which collectively seek to ensure that proposed developments are served by a suitable and safe access regime and provide appropriate parking provision commensurate with the scale of the development proposed and the current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.9. NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 14 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the ‘Place Principle’. NPF4 Policy 14(a) details that development proposals should be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations, regardless of scale with Part (b) affording support to developments where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places: Healthy, Pleasant, Connected, Distinctive, Sustainable and Adaptable. Part (c) details that development proposal which are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area, or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported. The DS provides a statement addressing the six qualities of successful places as follows. “Healthy: Our proposal will provide a much healthier home than the existing house at Page 225
Page 226
Comraich. The existing house is structurally un-safe and poses a risk to respiratory health. Our proposal uses Passivhaus principles to provide a healthy, breathable home; Pleasant: Our proposal uses high quality building materials and natural materials, to provide a pleasant house inside and out; Connected: Our proposal brings a habitable home back into the heart of Mannal, reducing the need for car dependence as future habitants can walk to neighbouring properties and cycle to the adjacent town of Balemartine; Distinctive: Our proposal is a creative play on the traditional Tiree house type, while also providing accommodation suitable for permanent living; Sustainable: Our proposal uses natural building materials such as timber kit construction and hemp insulation. It also includes provision of sustainable energy technologies: mechanical heat ventilation recovery, air source heat pump, and solar panels; Adaptable: Our proposal features three bedrooms, one on the ground floor and two on the first floor. This allows for future use by larger families as well as providing accessible accommodation for future disabled users”. As detailed above, the design the subject of the current application has come forward due to concerns raised by the CO to the previous proposal. In order to break up the massing proposed in the previous submission, the proposal the subject of the current application comprises two distinct elements, one single storey and the other 2 storey. The single storey element is traditionally designed and proportioned sited immediately adjacent to Myrtle Bank where it broadly lines through in terms of its roof and eaves. This element of the proposal comprises white rendered walls with a dark grey standing seam metal roof. The 2 storey element is set back from the single storey element where it is sufficiently separated from Myrtle Bank and, whilst higher than Myrtle Bank, shares a similar ridge height with other buildings in the area. The 2 storey element introduces a contemporary roof shape and window style whilst retaining the set-back eaves found in traditional blackhouses. The walls are to be finished in white render to match the single storey element with the roof finished in a green coloured standing seam metal to provide a visual separation between the traditional and contemporary elements of the dwellinghouse and also to provide a softer colour that will help to minimise the visual mass of the development. Whilst the CO deems the contemporary barn-style roof to the 2 storey element to be slightly awkward in design, as the roof of the single storey element is similar to the existing situation, the CO deems that the special characteristics of the built environment would generally be preserved. The CO further notes that the use of modern materials at the single storey part such as the metal roof, is in some ways regrettable as the traditional black top character is lost, it does allow legibility between the old and new (Myrtle Bank and Comraich) and as per LDP2 Policy 10, embodies “honesty and legibility of contemporary design”. It is considered that the proposal the subject of the current application would preserve the character and local distinctiveness of this part of the settlement, and therefore would be supported by NPF4 Policy 14, and would accord with LDP2 Policies 5, Design and Placemaking, 10, Design: All Development, and 15, Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Built Environment. 4.10. NPF4 Policy 15 – Local Living and 20 Minute Neighbourhoods Page 226
Page 227
NPF4 Policy 15(a) seeks development proposals to contribute to local living including, where relevant, 20 minute neighbourhoods. To establish this, consideration will be given to existing settlement pattern, and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area, including local access to a number of facilities. The LDP2 settlement strategy seeks to deliver sustainable levels of growth by steering the majority of development to our existing settlements where the most of our current infrastructure, services, employment opportunities, housing and community facilities are to be found and thereby making best use of these resources is a sustainable approach to development. In this instance, the site, by virtue of being within the Settlement of Mannal, as defined in the LDP2 proposals maps, would reasonably comply with NPF4 Policy 15 given the scale of the environment within which the development is to be located, and given its compliance with the existing settlement pattern and the level and quality of interconnectivity of the proposed development with the surrounding area where people can reasonably meet the majority of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home. The applicant’s sustainability checklist states “The site is only a 10 minute walk to Balemartine, which has a few small businesses including a café and bakery. The site is 7 minutes by car to Crossapol and 13 minutes by car to Scarinish, the two largest settlement on the island with more amenities. Tiree has a private hire mini-bus and school bus which is able to pick up and drop off people along the route.” The proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 15 and there is no conflict with LDP2 Policy 01, Settlement Areas and Policy 04, Sustainable Development with the current proposal raising no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.11. NPF4 Policy 16 – Quality Homes NPF4 Policy 16 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable homes in the right locations and providing choice of tenure to meet diverse housing needs. Policy 16(c) supports development proposals for new homes that improve affordability and choice by being adaptable to changing and diverse needs, and which address identified gaps in provision, including ‘self-provided homes’ of which the proposed development represents. With regards to Part (f) of Policy 16(i) an agreed timescale for build-out could be covered through the use of a planning condition; 16(ii), whilst the development proposed by this planning application is not on land actively allocated for housing in the LDP2, it would wholly accord with the adopted settlement strategy and would accord with the principles of ‘local living’ and ’20 minute neighbourhoods’; 16(iii) the proposal is for a smaller scale opportunity within an existing settlement and in addition is consistent with NPF4 Policy 17, Rural Homes (a) (viii) as it is a one-for-one replacement of an existing permanent house. The proposed development is deemed to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 16 and there is no conflict with LDP 2 Policy 01, Settlement Area with the current proposal raising no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.12. NPF4 Policy 17 – Rural Homes Page 227
Page 228
NPF4 Policy 17 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate the delivery of more high quality, affordable and sustainable rural homes in the right locations. Policy 17(a) supports development proposals for new homes in rural areas where the development is suitably scaled, sited and designed to be in keeping with the character of the area and gives specific support for one-for-one replacement of an existing permanent house. As detailed at NPF14 above, it is considered that the proposal the subject of the current application would preserve the distinctive and special characteristics of the area. Policy 17(b) requires proposals for new homes in rural areas to consider how the development will contribute towards local living and take into account identified local housing needs. It is has already been seen at NPF4 Policy 15 above that the proposed development is consistent with our adopted settlement strategy policies and that it would have no materially harmful access or environmental impact. The proposed development seeks the introduction of a replacement dwellinghouse which would accord with the Council’s key planning policies aims of supporting and sustaining fragile rural communities by contributing to actions to reverse our falling rural populations and supporting the local economy. Policy 17(c) offers additional support to new homes in remote rural areas where such proposals (i) support and sustain existing fragile communities; (ii) support identified local housing outcomes; and (iii) are suitable in terms of location, access and environmental impact. The proposed development is deemed to be consistent with NPF4 Policy 17 and LDP2 Policies 09, Sustainable Development and Policy 10, Design all Development which are discussed in more detail at NPF4 Policy 14 above with the current proposal raising no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.13. NPF4 Policy 18 – Infrastructure First NPF4 Policy 18 seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The application indicates water supply via connection to the public network with a private drainage system comprising a septic tank and soakaway due to the lack of public drainage infrastructure within the vicinity of the site. Scottish Water raised no objection to the proposed development but advised that the applicant will require to submit a Water Connection Application to allow them to fully appraise the proposal. The Council’s Building Standards Service will apply sufficient control over the detailed arrangements of the proposed private drainage system should the development proceed. The proposed development aligns with NPF4 Policy 18 and is in accordance with LDP2 Policies 04, Sustainable Development and Policy 60, Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater Drainage Systems which seek to ensure that suitable infrastructure is available to serve proposed developments and give support to private drainage arrangements where connection to the public system is not available. The current proposal would raise no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 4.14. NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 22 seeks to strengthen resilience to flood risk and to ensure that water resources are used efficiently and sustainably. Page 228
Page 229
As detailed above the development proposes connection to the public water supply to which Scottish Water has not objected to. With regards to the management of rain and surface water at the site, this could be controlled thorough a condition to secure a suitable sustainable drainage system for the site should permission be granted. The proposal aligns with NPF4 Policy 22 and LDP2 Policy 61, Sustainable Drainage Systems with the current proposal raising no issue of conflict should permission be granted. 5. Public Representation 5.1. At the time of writing, representations had been received from 39 respondents in relation to this planning application. 25 respondents raise objection and 14 provide support. It is not considered that the objections raise any complex or technical issues that have not been addressed in the current Report of Handling. 6. Conclusion 6.1. The key factor in the assessment of this application is whether or not the replacement dwellinghouse is of an appropriate scale, design and finishes which respects the character and appearance of the surrounding townscape in terms of scale, massing, design and finishing materials and whether it is consistent with the provisions of adopted National and Local Planning Policy No objections have been received from consultees with regards to the infrastructure required to serve the proposed development. Tiree Community Council has indicated their support to the application, stating that they are following the Community Council’s mission statement to grow the resident population of the island. The proposed development has been assessed against the provisions of both the adopted National and Local Policy set out above and is deemed to be in compliance with their requirements. The issues raised by third parties are not considered to amount to material planning considerations that have not been addressed through the processing of the planning application. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions. Page 229
Page 230
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 231
Site Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2009. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No.100023368, 2010. ° Date: 04.09.24 Location Plan relative to 24/01153/PP Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of replacement dwellinghouse and associated works Comraich, Mannal, Isle of Tiree Scale: 1:1,250Drawn By: kmk Page 231
Page 232
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 233
1 Argyll and Bute Council Development & Economic Growth PROPOSAL OF APPLICATION NOTICE (PAN) REPORT ____________________________________________________________________________ Reference: 24/01438/PAN Applicant: Clan Campbell (Whisky) Ltd Proposal: Proposal of Application Notice for: Whisky distillery, dunnage warehouse, visitor experience and associated infrastructure Site Address: Inveraray Castle Estate, Inveraray ____________________________________________________________________________ 1.0 INTRODUCTION Proposal of Application Notices only relate to National and Major Applications, as defined by the Government’s planning hierarchy, and are a statutory requirement prior to the submission of a further associated planning application, in line with the provisions of the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006. The PAN submission marks the start of a minimum 12 week period to allow for community consultation before an application can be lodged. This PAN submission was made valid on 2.8.2024. In considering this item, Members should restrict comments to issues relating to the material considerations which may be relevant in the determination of the proposed development and should refrain from expressing opinion as to the likely acceptability of development in advance of any subsequent application being presented for determination. Any opinions or views expressed by Councillors at the pre-application stage must be made mindful of the overarching requirements of fairness, impartiality and of keeping an open mind. The process provides opportunity for Officers to give feedback to the prospective applicant on issues which Members would wish to see addressed within the planning application submission. The submitted information includes: • Proposal of Application Notice • Location Plan • Copy of newspaper adverts The Proposal of Application Notice describes the proposed development as “A 2 MLA (2 million litres per annum) whisky distillery, dunnage warehouse, visitor experience and associated infrastructure”. The applicant has confirmed the following consultation steps have been undertaken: a) The following Community Council was notified, prior to the PAN being submitted: Inveraray Community Council. Page 233 Agenda Item 9
Page 234
2 In addition, the following consultation steps are proposed to be undertaken: b) Two public meetings held at the Inveraray Inn, Front Street, Inveraray, on the 28th of August & 25th September 2024. c) Two press notices to be placed in both the West Coast Today and the Oban Times, at least 7 days in advance of the proposed public meetings to be held, as set out above. Officers consider that the steps set out in the PAN are acceptable and in accordance with the minimum requirements of the relevant PAC Regulations to ensure appropriate community consultation is undertaken. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on the description of the development contained within the proposal of application notice, the forthcoming application is anticipated to comprise of a range of new buildings and associated groundworks, formation of a reinstated vehicular access road, staff car parking and associated infrastructure works, all required for the construction of a whisky distillery, dunnage and associated visitor centre on the site. An indicative site layout and details of all of the proposed structures to be constructed have been submitted, although the finalised scale, design and proposed external materials of the proposed buildings have still to be agreed. The project, once operational, is expected to create around 20 local jobs, and seeks to expand and diversify the existing tourism activities at the castle. The applicants are also proposing to repair and part rebuild sections of the listed garden wall within the application site, works that may require the submission of a separate application for listed building consent. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located partly within and partly adjacent to a listed walled garden, first constructed between 1752 and 1755, all set within the historic designated garden and designed landscape of Inveraray Castle. It is located approximately 900 metres to the north west of the castle, and 1.3km to the north of the town of Inveraray. The irregular shaped site slopes upwards notably from north to south and is currently vacant land, understood to have been previously used for horticultural and forestry/sawmill purposes, in association with the day to day running of the castle estate. It is bounded by a 6 metre high stone garden wall to the north, which also incorporates a small number of estate cottages within it, by a continuation of the high stone wall to the east and by areas of mature ancient woodland to both the south and the west. In terms of the adopted Local Development Plan 2 (2024), the site is located within the designated Countryside Area. 4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY This is not a planning application and therefore does not require evaluating and determining in accordance with Section 25 of the Planning Act against the Development Plan and its policies. However, in considering the merits of this PAN, a number of Development Plan Policy considerations are relevant. The policies likely to be considered include: Page 234
Page 235
3 National Planning Framework 4 (Adopted 2023) NPF4 Policy 1 – Tackling the climate and nature crises NPF4 Policy 2 – Climate mitigation and adaption NPF4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity NPF4 Policy 4 – Natural places NPF4 Policy 5 – Soils NPF4 Policy 6 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees NPF4 Policy 7 – Historic Assets and Places NPF4 Policy 9 – Brownfield, Vacant and Derelict Land and Empty Buildings (includes provisions relevant to Greenfield Sites) NPF4 Policy 13 – Sustainable Transport NPF4 Policy 14 – Design, Quality and Place NPF4 Policy 19 – Heating and Cooling NPF4 Policy 22 – Flood Risk and Water Management NPF4 Policy 23 – Health and Safety NPF4 Policy 25 – Community Wealth Building NPF4 Policy 26 – Business and Industry NPF4 Policy 29 – Rural Development NPF4 Policy 30 – Tourism Argyl & Bute Local Development Plan 2 (Adopted 2024) Policy 02 – Outwith Settlement Areas Policy 04 – Sustainable Development Policy 05 – Design and Placemaking Policy 06 – Green and Blue Infrastructure Policy 08 – Sustainable Siting Policy 09 – Sustainable Design Policy 10 – Design – All Development Policy 13 – Advertisements Policy 14 – Bad Neighbour Development Policy 15 – Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of Our Historic Environment Policy 16 – Listed Buildings Policy 20 – Gardens and Designed Landscapes Policy 21 – Sites of Archaeological Importance Policy 22 – Economic Development Policy 23 – Tourism Development, Accommodation, Infrastructure and Facilities Policy 25 – Tourism Development Opportunities Policy 32 – Active Travel Policy 35 – Design of New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes Policy 36 – New Private Accesses Policy 37 – Development Utilising an Existing Private Access or Existing Private Road Policy 39 – Construction Standards for Private Accesses Policy 40 – Vehicle Parking Provision Policy 55 – Flooding Policy 57 – Risk Appraisals Policy 58 – Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation Policy 59 – Water Quality and the Environment Page 235
Page 236
4 Policy 61 – Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) Policy 62 – Drainage Impact Assessments Policy 73 – Development Impact on Habitats, Species and Biodiversity Policy 77 – Forestry, Woodland and Trees Policy 78 – Woodland Removal Policy 79 – Protection of Soil and Peat Resources Policy 82 – Contaminated Land Land Use Designations in LDP 2: • Zoned as within the Countryside Area. • Within the Inveraray Castle Garden and Designed Landscape Other Relevant Policy Considerations: • TN06 Sustainability Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • TN07 Sustainable Buildings Technical Note and Checklist (Oct. 2023) • ABC Technical Note – Biodiversity (Feb 2017) • ABC Technical Note 2 – Advertisement & Signage Policy (Sept. 2017) • SEPA Standing Guidance for Development Management (Dec. 2022) 5.0 POTENTIAL MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS In respect of this proposal, it is considered that the following matters will be material considerations in the determination of any future planning application: • Detailed design, scale and massing; • Landscape and visual issues; • Climate change mitigation and adaptation; • Conservation, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity; • Green and blue infrastructure impacts; • Traffic, vehicular access, parking and transport; • Flood Risk, Water Quality and Drainage; • The views of statutory consultees in respect of any formal planning application; in particular Historic Environment Scotland, SEPA and Roads. • Any other material considerations raised within representations. 6.0 CONCLUSION The report sets out the information submitted to date as part of the PAN. Summarised are the policy considerations, against which any future planning application will be considered as well as potential material considerations and key issues based upon the information received to date. The list is not exhaustive and further matters may arise as and when a planning application is received and in the light of public representations and consultation responses. Page 236
Page 237
5 7.0 RECOMMENDATION That Members note the content of the report and submissions and provide such feedback as they consider appropriate in respect of this PAN to allow these matters to be considered by the applicants in finalising any future planning application submission. Author of Report: Stuart Ramsay Date: 29th August 2024 Reviewing Officer: Sandra Davies Date: 30th August 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 237
Page 238
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 239
Site Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright 2009. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or Civil Proceedings. OS License No.100023368, 2010. ° Date: 04.09.24 Location Plan relative to 24/01438/PAN Proposal of application notice for a whiskey distillery, dunnage warehouse, visitor experience & associated infrastructure, Inveraray Castle Estate, Inveraray Scale: 1:5,000Drawn By: kmk Page 239
Page 240
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 241
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th September 2024 Development Management Service Plan 2024 - 2026 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks the endorsement of the Development Management Service Plan 2024 – 2026 that is attached as Appendix A. 1.2 The Service Plan provides an overview of the Development Management Service and its main duties and seeks to outline how the Service can operate to underpin the corporate objectives of the Council. 1.3 The Service Plan includes an updated Development Management Improvement Action Plan which seeks not only to recover performance but which is intended to facilitate continuous improvement of the Service in the medium to longer term. 1.4 The Service Plan also identifies the key objectives of the Development Management Service and sets out a range of Key Performance Indicators and the reporting mechanisms that will be utilised to monitor performance and the delivery of improvement measures. 1.5 It is recommended that the Committee approve and endorse the Development Management Service Plan 2024 - 2026 (Appendix A) Page 241 Agenda Item 10
Page 242
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th September 2024 Development Management Service Plan 2024 - 2026 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 This report seeks the endorsement of the Development Management Service Plan which is attached as Appendix A. 2.2 The Service Plan seeks to provide an overview of the Development Management Service and its main duties and sets out how the Service can operate in a manner that will underpin the wider corporate objectives of the Council. 2.3 The Development Management Service Plan has been prepared at a time where the Service is acknowledged to be under-performing as it recovers from the significant disruption to workflow which is not only a legacy of the Covid pandemic but more recently as a direct impact of the Scottish Government’s introduction of National Planning Framework 4. It is also noted that the output of the Service has also been significantly impacted by a requirement to operate for extended periods of time with reduced staffing levels and vacancies in key posts which are in part attributed Covid, but more specifically to an identified National shortage of planning professionals. 2.4 The Service Plan seeks to identify that there has been significant progress in recovering the regulatory activity and performance of the Development Management Service following the introduction of an Improvement Action Plan in FQ4 2022/23. 2.5 The Improvement Action Plan has previously been subject to review, approval and progress reporting via the Council’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT). The Improvement Action Plan sets out 38 specific improvement actions which are based around 4 key areas aligned with i) improvement of performance, ii) review and improvement of processes, iii) recruitment and staff wellbeing, and iv) communication and engagement. 13 actions have been delivered to date and work has commenced and remains ongoing in relation to a further 18 items. The Improvement Action Plan is appended to the Service Plan and will remain as a ‘live’ document that will continue to be updated as individual actions are delivered/completed. 2.6 The Service Plan also seeks to identify the achievements of the Development Management Service during 2023/24 and highlights the successful recruitment activity and the creation of an additional 4.5 fte posts to directly support Service delivery in addition to 1 fte additional post to support the complementary activity within the separate Development Policy Team. During 2023/24 the improved resource within the Development Management Service allowed it to exceed 100% turnover of both planning applications and pre-application enquiries, and Page 242
Page 243
enforcement turnover was maintained at 96% for the same period. The allocation of additional resource has been achieved by utilising additional fee income that has arisen following the Scottish Government’s review of statutory planning fees; the cost of additional agency staff and a one off saving of £340k toward the Council’s wider budget was also able to be delivered as a result of a short-term increase in the volume of ‘major’ applications. 2.7 The Service Plan identifies that the key challenges in the upcoming period are to improve the timeliness and efficiency of decision making; to ensure that staff are provided appropriate support and opportunity for development; and to improve communications and engagement with customers, and the management of their expectations. 2.8 The Development Management Service is already subject to a wide range of reporting and monitoring mechanisms which include the annual National Planning Improvement Framework and bi-annual statistical returns to the Scottish Government in addition to quarterly performance reports to PPSL/ELT, monthly reports to the PRS Policy Lead, and internal reporting that informs day to day operation of the service and performance of teams/individuals. Appendix 1 of the Service Plan seeks to identify a range of Key Performance Indicators that are relevant and can be utilised to monitor performance of the Service and whether has managed to deliver against the outcomes identified. 2.9 Benchmarking has been undertaken against the most recent available Scottish Government data set which is for 2022/23. This indicates that the Council’s performance in relation to average time measures is largely within it’s pre-Covid targets which were set to be within 10% of the National Average. The exception to this is performance on ‘householder’ application times which are 3.8 weeks slower for the latest available data covering the 2022/23 reporting period. 2.10 The comparability of statistics which look at the percentage of determinations within statutory timescales are less favourable. It is however observed that Nationally nearly 20% of all ‘local non-householder’ applications and over 10% of all ‘householder’ applications have been removed from these data sets as a number of other local authorities have employed a tactic of recording time extensions as processing agreements for reporting purposes. This has the effect of removing long-running applications from both average time and statutory timescale measures. Whilst the data for 2023/24 is not yet available it is expected that the use of processing agreements by other local authorities will have increased as they also deal with their own backlogs of casework and staffing issues and that this will further skew the comparability of performance between local authorities, and the usefulness of the National Average as a benchmarking measure when statistics for 2023/24 are published. Moving forward it is proposed that from 2024/25 forwards, Argyll and Bute should recognise agreed time extensions as ‘processing agreements’ for the purpose of statistical reporting as a means of ensuring that the National Average remains a relevant benchmark for performance of Argyll and Bute Council in comparison to other authorities. 2.11 At this time it is proposed that the Council continue to set performance targets as being within 10% of the National Average but that targets continue to be reviewed annually against the most recent available National data set. 2.12 It is recommended that the Committee:- approve and endorse the Development Management Service Plan 2024 – 2026 (Appendix A) Page 243
Page 244
3.0 IMPLICATIONS 3.1 Policy: None 3.2 Financial: None 3.3 Legal: None 3.4 HR : None 3.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 3.5.1 Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None 3.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: A consistent and proportionate approach to planning enforcement is essential for natural justice. 3.5.3 Islands: None 3.6 Climate Change: None 3.7 Risk: None. 3.8 Customer Service: Service Plan sets out key performance indicators for measuring the performance of the DM Service, and in doing so, setting customer expectations on the service level to be provided. 3.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - None Executive Director with responsibility for Development & Economic Growth:- Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead:- Cllr Kieron Green 10th September 2024 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix A – Development Management Service Plan 2024 - 2026 Page 244
Page 245
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … . Draft August 2024 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE PLAN 2024 - 2026 APPENDIX A Note – Cover Photos and document date to be updated prior to publication Page 245
Page 246
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Overview of the Council’s Development Management Service The Scottish Government’s stated aim is for “a planning service that is efficient, inclusive, fit for purpose and sustainable. The planning system plays a key role in delivering high-quality places for Scotland. It balances competing demands to make sure that land is used and developed in the public’s long-term interest”. The Development Management Service undertakes the regulatory functions of the Council’s statutory role as “the planning authority” for Argyll and Bute* and includes: Processing and determination of planning and related applications under delegated powers, or by referal of more complex/contentious items to the Planning, Protective Services & Licencing (PPSL) Committee; (subject to the Council’s Development Management Charter) Enforcement of planning regulations and condition monitoring; (subject to the Council’s Planning Enforcement & Monitoring Charter) The provision of pre-application advice to prospective applicants; Representation of the Council in matters that are subject to appeal, or require to be notified to Scottish Ministers for their determination via the Directorate for Planning & Environmental Appeals (DPEA) The provision of information to assist the Argyll and Bute Local Review Board in their determination of applications which are subject to Local Review; Representation of the Council as professional witnesses at Public Local Inquiry on planning and related matters. Assessment and determination of applications for a High Hedge Notice. Annually, the Development Management Service receives between 1700 and 1900 statutory planning and related applications, and approximately 500 pre-applications enquiries, 250 planning enforcement complaints and 60 consultations where input of the Council as “planning authority” is necessary. Due to the challenges presented by the extensive geographic boundaries of Argyll and Bute, the Development Management Service continues to be delivered by three Area based teams respectively covering Bute Cowal, Helensburgh and Lomond (BCHL); Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands (MAKI); and Oban, Lorn and the Isles (OLI). The Major Applications Team operates across the full extent of Argyll and Bute’s planning area and provides enhanced specialist resource for more complex applications, including windfarms, aquaculture, and minerals, in addition to larger scale developments. The Service is supported by the Central Validation Team (CVT) who are responsible for the registration and validation of new submissions, and also by an Administrative Support Team which is a shared resource with the Council’s Building Standards Service. The Development Management Service is a fee earning service. Income is primarily derived from nationally set fees for planning and related applications, the Council also charges non-statutory Page 246
Page 247
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … discretionary fees for the provision of pre-application advice and a range of post-determination services. The Scottish Government have set out an aspiration that local authority Development Management functions should operate on a full cost recovery basis; whilst it is recognised that the current statutory fee structure does not yet fully support this aim the Scottish Government have stated a commitment to further reform of planning fees to that end. Due to a higher than normal number of major applications received during both 2022/23 and 2023/24 the Council’s Development Management Service has been able to recover its operational costs, including additonal expenditure on staff, from surplus fee income. Key Stakeholders Applicants, Agents/Architects Developers – including Aquaculture Industry, Renewables Industry, Telecommunications Industry – The ‘Development Community’; The general public / land owners / residents of Argyll and Bute – third parties affected by / benfitting from new development; ABC Roads, Environmental Health, Conservation & Design Officer, Biodiversity Officer, Access Officer, and Airports – Internal Counsultees to the planning process; Nature Scot, SEPA, Health & Safety Executive, Transport Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland, Scottish Water, Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd., MoD, and Community Councils – Statutory Consultees to the planning process; ABC Building Standards, Development Policy, Economic Development, Development Projects, Environmental Health, Licencing, Governance, Estates, and Housing – inter- related/complementary Council activities; Forestry Land Scotland, Scottish and Southern Energy Networks, Highlands & Islands Enterprise – external agencies with National development interests; Scottish Government – policy making / legistlative role / performance reporting. Page 247
Page 248
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Development Management Service Objectives The work of the Development Management Service supports the Council’s corporate objectives in responding to the respective Climate and Housing Emergencies, in the promotion of economic growth and addressing population decline, seeking to improve the quality of places, and protecting the natural and built environment. 1. To process planning and related applications in a timely and efficient manner; 2. To execute decision making with a high degree of competency and consistency; 3. To offer a responsive service to applicants and the public making effective use of IT to enhance customer experience and communication; 4. To investigate and act upon complaints about unauthorised development in a timely, consistent, and efficient manner; 5. To support place-making by ensuring that new development is of a suitably high quality design, served by appropriate infrastructure, and sufficiently compatible with neighbouring land uses; 6. To support business development and sustainable growth in local employment opportunities; 7. To conserve and where possible enhance the distinctive character and special qualities of the historic built environment; 8. To support the Council’s response to the ‘Climate Emergency’ by seeking to preserve and enhance the character and diversity of the natural environment, and ensuring that new development is sustainable; 9. To support the Council’s aim to reverse population decline and its response to the ‘Housing Emergency’ by supporting the delivery of affordable housing in the locations where this is most urgently required; 10. To promote and maintain effective working relationships with key stakeholders in the planning process; 11. To ensure that the Development Management Service has a valued and supported workforce; 12. To promote and where possible seek to advance professional standards internally and externally in planning, and improvement of the planning system; Page 248
Page 249
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Achievements 2023/2024 1751 Statutory Planning & Related Applications Received 1684 Statutory Planning & Related Application Casework Items Validated 1853 Statutory Planning & Related Application Casework Items Closed 110% Turnover of Statutory Planning & Related Casework Items with a consequent reduction in casework backlog by 45% (from 375 items to 206 items) 197 Enforcement Complaints Investigated 18 Enforcement Notices Issued 189 Enforcement Complaints Closed 96% Turnover of Enforcement Complaints 499 Pre-application Enquiries Validated 513 Pre-application Enquiries Closed 103% Turnover of Pre-Application Enquiries Recruitment of 2 Area Team Leaders to facilitate succession planning 1 additional FTE Planning Enforcement Officer post funded and recruited to release additional planning officer capacity within Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh and Lomond 2 additional FTE Senior Planning Officer posts funded and recruited to meet increased demand for complex case work and cover for ATL duties 0.5 additional FTE CVT Technician post funded and recruited to facilitate succession planning and additional capacity within CVT 1 additional FTE temporary Admin resource to assist in communictaions and delivery of improvement actions 1 additional FTE Graduate Development Policy Officer funded by DM Service 40h/pw temporary additional Planning Officer resource funded and recruited until Nov. 2024 One off saving of £340k delivered as a contribution to the wider budget challenge facing the Council Page 249
Page 250
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Key Challenges and the Improvement Action Plan The Council has experienced significant challenges in the delivery of its Development Management Service in recent years. The exceptional disruption to workflow which arose as a direct impact of the Covid pandemic along with the concurrent significant difficulties in recruiting to vacant posts which has arisen as a result of a shortage of qualified planning professionals had a significant impact on the ability of the Council’s Development Management Service to meet demand for the determination of planning and related applications over this period. Recovery from the legacy impacts of Covid has also been impacted by the implementation of the Scottish Government’s programme of planning reform and the implementation of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 which has not only created additional duties for the Council as planning authority but has also given rise to a significant increase in the complexity of the planning process and the policy environment within which it operates. The Scottish Government’s adoption of National Planning Framework 4 in February 2023 in itself gave rise to a similar level of disruption to the workflow of the Development Management Service as was experienced across the whole of the Covid pandemic and continues to be an additional drain on resources, along with the imposition of additional ‘prior notification’ categories of development. The significant disruption to workflow experienced along with the requirement to operate for extended periods with key vacancies across the Development Management Service has given rise to a significant backlog of casework that has adversely impacted upon the timeliness of issuing planning decisions with a consequent decline not only in customer satisfaction but also the wellbeing of officers. The long-term degradation of performance has resulted in an Improvement Action Plan being prepared and approved by the Council’s Executive Leadership Team in May 2023. The Action Plan set out 4 key areas to be addressed: 1. Review staff structure and identify specific gaps and specific workload pressures 2. Review Internal Processes Including Enforcement 3. Officer Attraction, Retention, Morale, and Wellbeing 4. Communication and Engagement with Residents, Partners and Colleagues The four key areas for action are in turn geared toward the delivery of the following objectives: • Delivering improved performance in the determination of planning applications; • Reduction in the backlog of planning application casework; • To ensure continued quality of decision making; • To undertake a review of Enforcement practices, resources and caseloads; • To examine the structure of the DM Service to ensure that all aspects are properly resourced; • Identify procedural and technological efficiencies to aid decision making and increase productivity; • Review and re-focus the Pre-Application Advice Service to better meet customer requirements and seek to maximise potential for non-statutory income recovery; • Develop and implement a Communication Strategy to improve engagement with Customers and better inform interested parties about the planning process; Page 250
Page 251
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … • To retain experienced staff and to attract new staff to Argyll and Bute within workforce planning; • Embed a culture of continuous support, learning and improvement for staff; • Promotion of health and wellbeing across the DM Service; • Inform budget setting to facilitate a financially sustainable Service. The Action Plan identified thirty-eight specific improvement actions. Thirteen actions have subsequently been completed, and work has commenced and is on-going in relation to a further eighteen actions. The Improvement Action Plan has been attached to the DM Service Plan as Appendix 2 but will remain a ‘live’ document that will continue to be updated as progress is made. The actions delivered to date have primarily focussed on addressing critical resourcing issues within the Development Management Service. This has not only facilitated successful recruitment to all vacant posts but has also supported an additional 4.5 FTE permanent posts and temporary agency resource of 40 h/pw within Development Management, and has also supported the creation of 1 additional FTE within the Development Policy Team. The action taken to date in addressing the fundamental capacity issues within the Development Management Service has had a significant impact in the improvement of performance. This is most notable in the increased output of planning application determinations since FQ1 2023/24 and the significant progress that has been made in reducing the cumulative backlog of casework by 45% in the subsequent period. This period has also seen an improvement in the throughput of newer casework with an increasing volume and reducing timescale for the progression of new applications. The improvement to timeliness in the handling of new casework in increasing volume and shorter timescales is however masked by the determination of higher numbers of ‘legacy’ applications which are also being determined and which have a disproportionate impact on overall average time performance measures. Based on review of part year data for 2023/24 it is expected that there is likely to be increased variance between ABC and the National Average for the annual 2023/24 reporting period; this position will however reduce as the volume of ‘legacy’ items being determined decreases. It is proposed that monthly/quarterly reporting formats to ELT/PPSL will continue to include additional detail that demonstrates that the effect of ‘legacy’ items upon overall timescale measures and inform commentary on performance against ‘overall’ timescale targets. Significant effort has also been made to manage customer dissatisfaction through better communication and setting of expectations. A monthly update on the Service Status, including average timescales is published on the Council website, additional resource has been employed to assist officers with the management of enquiries, and new work processes have been introduced to encourage formal extension of statutory time limits where a decision cannot be delivered within the initial prescribed statutory time periods. Whilst the actions taken over the past 18 months have placed the Development Management Service on a much sounder footing it is recognised that there is still considerable improvement required if the Development Management Service is to be able to efficiently and effectively support the aspirations of developers and the Council’s own corporate objectives. It is recognised in particular that timeliness of decision making remains a considerable concern to the development community despite benchmarking confirming that, with the notable exception of ‘householder’ development, the Council largely remains within its pre-Covid position of being within 10% of the National Average in relation to average timescales based on benchmarking for 2022/23 Page 251
Page 252
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … data. This would indicate that a number of other local authorities are also facing similar issues relating to workflow and recruitment to those faced by Argyll and Bute. It is proposed the performance targets continue to be aligned toward being within 10% of the National Average; it is however noted that other authorities are making increasing use of ‘processing agreements’ to manage the impact of out of time applications on timeliness reporting to the Scottish Government. In order to maintain parity it is proposed that Argyll and Bute record agreed time extensions to applications in the same manner for performance reporting and benchmarking parity allowing better comparison from 2024/25 forwards. It has been identified that there is significant potential to improve the efficiency of existing workflow processes and make more effective use of the capabilities of backoffice systems particularly in relation to pre-application enquiries, preparation of reports, planning enforcement, and the discharge of planning conditions. It is essential that these workstreams are progressed to ensure that any time-saving that can be released not only improves on performance in the timeliness of determination but also maintains the professional capacity required by the Service to deal with the increasing demands and complexity of the planning system and the post-NPF4 policy environment. The Improvement Action Plan identifies a range of process and system improvements that require to be delivered to this end. The significant work pressure that staff have endured over an extended period of time, coupled with the impact of planning reform is recognised to have impacted significantly on staff wellbeing with increased levels of absence evident over the recent period. Whilst underlying issues with staff capacity have largely been resolved, there is still considerable work to be done to ensure that staff have the appropriate knowledge, skillset, support, and confidence to operate effectively within this rapidly changing environment. It is also recognised that the Council has a role in addressing the national shortage of planning professionals. The Improvement Action Plan includes a range of actions which are intended to improve staff development, wellbeing, the promotion of planning as a career, and future recruitment. It is also recognised that despite the recent improvements within the Development Management Service, there still remains a considerable degree of customer dis-satisfaction. In this respect it is critical that in the short-medium term that the backlog of casework is resolved and ensures that the continuing impact on both customers and overall performance is removed. Further work is also required to improve communications with regular customers to ensure that they understand the challenges facing the Development Management Service, to provide confidence that these are being addressed, and to provide support for architects and agents who may also be experiencing difficulty with the additional policy implications of NPF4 and LDP2. The Improvement Action Plan includes a range of activities which are intended to improve engagement with key stakeholders. Despite statutory planning fees having been increased from April 2022 it is recognised that the current fee structure is insufficient to support full cost-recovery of the statutory activity of the Development Management Service. Officers will continue to advocate for further reform of statutory fees and investigate opportunities to supplement planning fee income through the introduction of discretionary charges. Page 252
Page 253
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Monitoring and Reporting on Performance The performance of the Development Management Service is subject to a significant level of internal and external scruitiny through regular perfomance reporting. The Key Performance Indicators utilised to monitor the performance of the Development Management Service in delivering against its Service Objectives are collated within Appendix 1. A streamlined set of Service Standards are published within the Development Management Charter which is intended as a quick reference guide to establish and manage customer expectations for the processing of planning and related applications. The Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Charter sets out an overview of the Council’s approach to planning enforcement and service standards. The overall performance of the Council as Planning Authority and requirement for improvement has until recently been subject to annual reporting to Scottish Ministers through a Planning Performance Framework (PPF) report. From 2024/25 the PPF will be replaced by the National Planning Improvement Framework (NPIF) – Argyll and Bute Council’s first NPIF report will be submitted during FQ3 2024/25. The Council is also required to submit bi-annual returns to the Scottish Government (SG) for inclusion in their bi-annual publication of Planning Statistics. This data allows for benchmarking of performance against other local authorities. The National Average is the benchmark which is predominently utilised in the review and setting of performance targets in relation to timeliness of determining planning applications. The latest wholeyear statistics available from the Scottish Government are for the period 2022/23. The performance of the Development Management Service is also subject to Quarterly reporting to the Planning, Protective Services and Licencing (PPSL) Committee, and the Council’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT). Performance data at a more local level is also submitted Quarterly for inclusion in the ‘Area Scorecards’ for the Council’s four Area Committees. A monthly update report on performance and operational issues is provided for review by the Exec Director/ Head of Service and the Policy Lead for Planning & Regulatory Services. Internal performance reports providing data on the performance of teams and individuals is produced on a monthly basis to inform operational decisions on resourcing, caseload allocation and 1:1 performance discussions between Team Leaders and Planning Officers. Page 253
Page 254
10 Service Structure – August 2024 Note: Improved formatting of Service Structure to be prepared for document prior to publication Page 254
Page 255
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Appendix 1: Key Performance Indicators for Development Management 2024 - 2026 Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 1. To process planning and related applications in a timely and efficient manner; Timeliness of decision making / processing Average time taken to determine ‘major’ planning applications2 NPIF Report Annual <43 weeks3 National Average4 (2022/23 – 39.5 weeks) 2022/23 ABC 43.1 weeks 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 52.9 weeks ABC 18.8 weeks SG Publication Bi-annual Average time taken to determine ‘local non- householder’ planning applications2 NPIF Report Annual <16 weeks3 National Average4 (2022/23 – 14.4 weeks) 2022/23 ABC 16.3 weeks 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 14.1 weeks ABC 23.3 weeks SG Publication Bi-annual PPSL / ELT Quarterly1 PRS Policy Lead Monthly1 Average time taken to determine ‘householder’ planning applications2 NPIF Report Annual <10 weeks3 National Average4 (2022/23 – 8.9 weeks) 2022/23 ABC 12.7 weeks 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 8.2 weeks ABC 16.5 weeks SG Publication Bi-annual PPSL / ELT Quarterly1 PRS Policy Lead Monthly1 Average time to undertake PRS Policy Lead Monthly <5 working days n/a Page 255
Page 256
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … validation check from receipt % of ‘local non- householder’ applications determined within statutory time Period (2 months)2 NPIF Annual >45%3 National Average4 (2022/23 – 48.0%) 2022/23 ABC 38.5% 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 50.8% ABC 20.0% SG Publication Bi-annual % of ‘householder’ applications determined within Statutory Time Period (2 months)2 NPIF Annually >65%3 National Average4 (2022/23 – 71.5%) 2022/23 ABC 37.3% 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 76.5% ABC 28.9% SG Publication Bi-annually Efficiency of decision making Turnover of Statutory Applications (applications valid / applications determined) PPSL / ELT Quarterly >100%5 n/a PRS Policy Lead Monthly % of applications determined under delegated powers NPIF Annual >95%3 National Average4 (2022/23 – 96.4%) 2022/23 ABC 98.2% 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 93% ABC 97.1% SG Publication Bi-annually Delivery of a balanced budget for the DM Service NPIF Annual £0 Negative Variance n/a PRS Policy Lead Monthly Explanatory Notes: 1 Data set will be based on ‘raw’ data not including adjustment for ‘clock stopping’. Page 256
Page 257
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … 2 Excluding applications subject to a processing agreement / agreed extension of time. 3. Target set at being within 10% of the National Average 4. National Average based on latest available data from Scottish Government Statistical Publications (2022/23) 5. Target of >100% set with the aim of managing an existing backlog of casework. Additional measures for reporting performance on processing of Prior Notifications, Discharge of Conditions, Non-Material Amendments to be developed during 2024/25 alongside enhanced workflow for these processes. Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 2. To execute decision making with and achieve a high degree of competency and consistency; Consistency in Decision Making % of all decisions which are a departure to the Development Plan PPSL / ELT Quarterly <5% n/a % of original decisions upheld following LRB NPIF Annually >50% n/a % of original decisions upheld following appeals NPIF Annually >50% National Average (2022/23 – 46.2%) 2022/23 ABC 0% (2 apps) 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 46.4% ABC 0% (1 app) SG Publication Bi-annually Competency in Decision Making No. of decisions subject to Judicial Review PRS Policy Lead As necessary Avoid n/a No. of decisions subject to adverse SPSO recommendation in relation to competency of process PRS Policy Lead As necessary Avoid n/a Page 257
Page 258
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 3. To offer a responsive service to applicants and the public making effective use of IT to enhance customer experience and communication; Customer Satisfaction No. of complaints upheld as a % of total no. of complaints NPIF Annually <25% n/a PPSL / ELT Quarterly No. of complaints upheld by SPSO NPIF Annually Avoid n/a PPSL / ELT Quarterly Feedback from Customer Satisfaction Survey NPIF Annually n/a n/a Managing Customer Expectations % of ‘major’ applications determined within the timescale established by processing agreement NPIF Annually >60% National Average6 (2022/23 – 58.7%) 2022/23 ABC No data 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 57.1% ABC No data SG Publication Bi-annually % of ‘local non- householder’ applications determined within the timescale established by processing agreement NPIF Annually >70% National Average6 (2022/23 – 66.9%) 2022/23 ABC No data 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 68.4% ABC No data SG Publication Bi-annually Page 258
Page 259
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … % of ‘householder’ applications determined within the timescale established by processing agreement NPIF Annually >80% National Average6 (2022/23 – 78.0%) 2022/23 ABC No data 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 72.7% ABC No data SG Publication Bi-annually % of Listed Building / Conservation Area Consent applications determined within the timescale established by processing agreement NPIF Annually >80% National Average6 (2022/23 – 77.6%) 2022/23 ABC No data 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. No data ABC No data SG Publication Bi-annually Efficient Use of IT % of applications submitted via ePlanning Portal NPIF Annually 95% n/a Publication of updated DM Service Status ABC website Monthly Min. of 12 updates annually n/a Explanatory Notes: 6 National Average based on latest available data from Scottish Government Statistical Publications (2022/23) Page 259
Page 260
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 4. To investigate and act upon complaints about unauthorised development in a timely, consistent, and efficient manner;9 Consistency of Enforcement Activity Up to date Enforcement Charter in place NPIF Annually <2 years old n/a % of original Enforcement Notices upheld on appeal PPSL / ELT Quarterly >50% n/a Efficiency of Enforcement Activity Turnover of Enforcement Casework7 PPSL / ELT Quarterly 100% n/a Timeliness of Enforcement Activity % of Complainants issued with initial update within 5 weeks8 PPSL / ELT Quarterly >75% n/a Explanatory Notes: 7 Data set total no. of complaints received / no. of cases closed. Detail of no. of cases taken up (i.e. breach of control suspected) will be provided for comparison. 8 Measured from date of receipt of original complaint 9 Enforcement Performance measures to be implemented and expanded from FQ1 2025/26 following implementation of revised workflow systems for Planning Enforcement Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 5. To support place- making by ensuring that new development is of a suitably high quality design, served by appropriate Identifying the delivery of high quality development within ABC Argyll and Bute Design Awards (DP Service) NPIF Annually n/a n/a Promotion of development within ABC recognised NPIF Annually n/a n/a Page 260
Page 261
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … infrastructure, and sufficiently compatible with neighbouring land uses; through external awards Promotion of high quality design outcomes (DP Service) ABC Website As necessary n/a n/a Explanatory Notes: ABC Design Awards held on a bi-annual basis by Development Policy Team with involvement of PPSL Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 6. To support business development and growth in local employment opportunities; Support for Business and Employment No. of business and industry planning applications submitted annually ABC Corporate Outcome Indicators Annually n/a n/a Approval Rate as % of all decisions NPIF Annual >95%12 National Average11 (2022/23 – 93.5%) 2022/23 ABC 99.5% 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 97.5% ABC 99.0% SG Publication Bi-annually Average time taken to determine ‘major’ Business & Industry planning applications NPIF Annually <20 weeks12 National Average11 (2022/23 – 24.2 weeks) 2022/23 ABC No data 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 31.9 weeks ABC No data SG Publication Bi-annually Average time taken to determine NPIF Annually <14 weeks12 National Average11 2022/23 ABC 19.5 weeks Page 261
Page 262
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … ‘local’ Business & Industry planning applications SG Publication Bi-annually (2022/23 – 12.4 weeks) 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 12.0 weeks ABC18.0 weeks % of ‘local’ pre- application enquiries with initial response issued within 30 working days10 PPSL / ELT Quarterly >75% n/a % of ‘major’ pre- application enquiries with initial response issued within 40 working days10 PPSL / ELT Quarterly >75% n/a Turnover of pre- application enquiries PPSL / ELT Quarterly 100% n/a Explanatory Notes: 10 Review and update of pre-app process and workflow required to allow reliable data collection – implementation from FQ1 2025/26 11 National Average based on latest available data from Scottish Government Statistical Publications (2022/23) 12 Target set at being within 10% of the National Average Page 262
Page 263
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 7. To conserve and where possible enhance the distinctive character and special qualities of the historic built environment; Timely processing of applications for Listed Building and Conservation Area Consents. Average time taken to determine Listed Building and Conservation Area planning applications13 NPIF Annually <12 weeks National Average14 (2022/23 – 10.9 weeks) 2022/23 ABC 16.2 weeks 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. No data ABC No data SG Publication Bi-annually Explanatory Notes: 13 Excluding applications subject to a processing agreement / agreed extension of time. 14 National Average based on latest available data from Scottish Government Statistical Publications (2022/23) Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 8. To support the Council’s response to the ‘Climate Emergency’ by seeking to preserve and enhance the character and diversity of the natural environment, and ensuring that new development is sustainable; None identified at this time Explanatory Notes: The Development Management Service does not currently record or have access to a relevant data set measuring the value of Biodiversity Net Gain. It is noted that the Scottish Government has commissioned research into various methodologies for measuring bio-diversity at site level and they have set out the aspiration for producing a common framework through an agreed Scottish approach to measuring biodiversity which would allow for consistent and comparable assessment of losses or gains in biodiversity across sites and allow comparison and trading across sectors. It is proposed that performance indictors of DM in this respect be reconsidered at such time as a national biodiversity metric or measurement tool has been identified by the Scottish Government. Research into Approaches to Measuring Biodiversity in Scotland (www.gov.scot) Page 263
Page 264
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 9. To support the Council’s aim to reverse population decline and its response to the ‘Housing Emergency’ by supporting the delivery of affordable housing in the locations where this is most urgently required; Support for delivery of new housing Average time taken to determine ‘major’ Housing planning applications15 NPIF Annually <43 weeks16 National Average17 (2022/23 – 39.3 weeks) 2022/23 ABC 46.6 weeks 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 99.8 weeks ABC No data SG Publication Bi-annually Average time taken to determine ‘local’ Housing planning applications15 NPIF Annually <19 weeks16 National Average17 (2022/23 – 17.2 weeks) 2022/23 ABC 16.6 weeks 2023/24 FQ2 Nat. Avg. 17.0 weeks ABC 29.2 weeks SG Publication Bi-annually Explanatory Notes: 15 Excluding applications subject to a processing agreement / agreed extension of time. 16 Target set at being within 10% of the National Average 17 National Average based on latest available data from Scottish Government Statistical Publications (2022/23) Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 10. To promote and maintain effective engagement with key stakeholders to the planning process; Customer Engagement Annual Customer User Forum NPIF Annually Min. of 1 event per annum n/a Publication of Customer Newsletter NPIF Quarterly Min. of 4 per annum n/a Consultee Engagement Ensure that regular liaison arrangements are in place with all NPIF Annually Min. of 1 event per annum per stakeholder n/a Page 264
Page 265
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … key DM consultees Effectiveness of Consultee Arrangements Average response time for External Consultees NPIF Annually <21 days n/a Average response time for Internal Consultees NPIF Annually <21 days n/a Elected Member Engagement Number of Member Enquiries Received / Responded NPIF Annually n/a n/a Delivery of Elected Member Training NPIF Annually Min. of 9 events per annum n/a Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 11. To ensure that the Development Management Service has a valued and supported workforce; Support DM Staff Health and Wellbeing Monitor Absence Rates HR report to Development Manager Monthly n/a ABC Number of casework items per ft Planning Officer18 DM Management Team Monthly <50 n/a Up to date Health & Safety Policies DM Management Team Quarterly <2 years n/a Page 265
Page 266
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Promote staff retention and successful recruitment Staff Retention (average time in post) NPIF Annually n/a n/a Up to date Succession and Recruitment Plan Corporate – HR Bi-annually <6 months n/a Staff Survey DM Management Team Annually n/a n/a Leaver Survey – lessons learnt DM Management Team As necessary n/a n/a Explanatory Notes: 18 Upper threshold intended as a general guide – this will be for ATLs to set on an individual basis having due regard to level of experience, complexity of casework and any other demands upon officer time. Objective Outcome Description of Measure Reporting Mechanism(s) Reporting Frequency Target Benchmarking Notes 12. To promote and where possible seek to advance professional standards in planning, and improvement of the planning system; Promote professional development and individual performance % of Professional DM staff (LGE 11 +) with RTPI accreditation NPIF Annually 100% n/a % of DM Staff to have completed Career Conversation within preceeding 12 months NPIF Annually 100% n/a Up to date Training Plan for DM NPIF Annually <1 year n/a Page 266
Page 267
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Review of individual / team performance DM Management Team Quarterly n/a n/a ATL/Officer 1:1 Monthly Annual Planning Conference (with DP) NPIF Annually Min. of 1 event annually n/a Participation at HoPS Conference and Sub-Groups NPIF Annually n/a n/a Respond to SG consultations relevant to Development Management NPIF Annually n/a n/a PPSL As required Review and sharing of best practice NPIF Annually n/a n/a Provide update to Elected Members on Appeal Decisions PPSL As required n/a n/a Page 267
Page 268
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Appendix 2: Improvement Action Plan for Development Management 2023 – 2026 (updated August 2024) Improvement Area 1 - Review staff structure and Identify key gaps and specific workload pressures ACTION TIMESCALE TO COMMENCE LEAD OFFICER DELIVERY STATUS/RESOURCES Notes/Comments 1:01 Review validation team numbers to help reduce validation times Commenced FQ4 2022/23 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED FQ4 2022/23 Temporary increase of CVT staffing levels effected from March 2022. CVT performance recovered from +28 days to being within 5 day target during Autumn 2022 and has subsequently continued to operate within performance target. 1:02 Review Enforcement Planners numbers to enable Planners to focus on Planning Applications and Commenced FQ4 2022/23 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED FQ1 2023/24 Additional Enforcement Officer post covering Helensburgh and Lomond/Bute and Cowal created. Post filled from May 2023. Page 268
Page 269
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … deal with Enforcement backlog 1:03 Review Major Applications Team Planner Numbers Commenced Summer 2022 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED FQ1 2024/25 Funding for two additional Senior Planners identified however recruitment has proven problematic (posts advertised several times no successful applicants; see action) Additional resource has been provided through use of agency staff as a temporary measure. Two additional SPO post filled from June 2024 1:04 Review Senior Planner and Team Leader Grades Commenced June 2023 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED FQ4 2023/24 Job Evaluation process completed Sept 2023. Senior Planners (4 posts); Team Leaders (4 posts) additional funding required to maintain differentials. Funding agreed by S95 Officer Completed – Revised JDPS approved 06.02.24 1:05 Review Admin support for Development Commenced June 2023 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED FQ2 2023/24 One additional administration post LGE 8 recruited with post taken up in August 2023 Page 269
Page 270
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Manager with a focus on communication management 1:06 Review Planning Policy Team capacity Commenced Summer 2023 HOS Planning Policy Manager COMPLETED FQ2 2023/24 One additional post created within Development Policy team 1:07 Succession planning for validation service Commenced June 2023 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED FQ2 2023/24 One additional post to provide validation capacity to maintain recovery of performance succession planning. 1:08 Addressing Backlog of Planning Application Casework Commenced April 2023 HOS Development Manager IN PROGRESS Focus of DM Service delivery has moved from continuation of service with prioritisation afforded to key applications to a focus on increasing productivity and addressing an accrued backlog of 375 applications. Updated performance stats provided to Policy Lead monthly and to ELT/PPSL quarterly. FQ1 24/25 update: Improving availability of professional staff resource across DM and active caseload management has seen improved output Page 270
Page 271
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … from FQ1 2023/24onwards. Backlog reduced from 350 to 150 items. Additional Agency resource recruited to provide support through until FQ3 2024/25. 1:09 Review of Planning Officer Resources deployed in West of Argyll in both short and long term. October 2023 Rescheduled FQ4 2023/24 Rescheduled FQ2 2024/25 Development Manager Development Manager NOT STARTED Current imbalance in resources allocated to MAKI and OLI – require to ensure that both offices are appropriately staffed to meet demand and provide flexibility and resilience to accommodate absence and periods of increased demand. Commencement delayed due to key staff absence within OLI and MAKI teams. 1:10 GIS Resource for Contaminated Land FQ4 2023/24 HOS Development Manager / Reg. Services & Building Standards Manager IN PROGRESS DM to jointly fund a temporary resource within Reg. Services to collate and create GIS data layer on contaminated land. Output is required to provide an improved resource for identifying historic land contamination in the planning process, and to release existing resource within Reg. Services for responding to backlog of planning consultations on contaminated land. Page 271
Page 272
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Recruitment process concluded Feb 2024. Project underway. Improvement Area 2 – Review Internal processes including enforcement ACTION TIMESCALE TO COMMENCE LEAD OFFICER DELIVERY STATUS/RESOURCES Notes/Comments 2:01 Assess policy requirements against NPF4 Commenced Feb 2023 HOS Development Manager with input from Policy Manager COMPLETED FQ4 2023/24 Review completed FQ4 2023/24 but remains under review for any external guidance from Scottish Government/DPEA appeal decisions. 2:02 Review Pre application advice process Commenced August 2023 HOS Development Manager / ATLs / Officers / Customers (consultation) IN PROGRESS Review will assess different levels of pre application advice and associated planning fees to help speed up process for applicants. Review will also consider use of Self – serve (website content) and Validation guidance – checklists? SG agenda? Behind schedule due to key staff absence. Customer consultation completed Jan 2024. Further work delayed until FQ3 2024/25. 2:03 Commenced February 2023 HOS Development Manager / ATLs / IN PROGRESS Initial assessment completed FQ4 2022/23 and issued to Officers; Ongoing monitoring. Page 272
Page 273
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Provide clear guidance on NPF4 policy implications and continue to update as required Action requires to be updated to address LDP2 Development Policy Manager Exercise requires to be repeated in FQ4 2023/24 to account for LDP2 adoption. Ongoing requirements for development of guidance on Climate Change / Biodiversity Metric for net gain / Short Term Lets 2:04 Review enforcement reporting September 2023 Rescheduled FQ4 2023/24 Rescheduled FQ3 2024/25 HOS Development Manager NOT STARTED Commencement delayed due to reduced resource arising from key absence. Review will now commence FQ3 24/25 with intent to implement alongside updated Enforcement Charter during 2025 Basic reporting measures identified for DM Service Plan however these will require review alongside a revamped charter and workflow. 2:05 Review of ABC Planning Enforcement Charter September 2023 Rescheduled FQ4 2023/24 Rescheduled FQ2 2024/25 HOS Development Manager IN PROGRESS Commencement delayed due to reduced resource arising from key absence. Light touch review to be taken forward to Sept. 2024 PPSL meeting. Page 273
Page 274
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … 2:06 Review of enforcement workflow processes September 2023 Rescheduled FQ1 2024/25 Rescheduled FQ3 2024/25 Development Manager Development Manager / ATLs / Enforcement Officers / Sys. Techs NOT STARTED Commencement delayed due to reduced resource arising from key absence. Review will now commence Jan 2024 with intent to implement initial improvements alongside updated Enforcement Charter in FQ3 2024/25, and a more significant overhaul as part of implementation of Enterprise workflow (see action 2:07) 2:07 Expand Enterprise performance management system Commenced June 2023 HOS Development Manager / Sys. Techs IN PROGRESS Improve the functionality of the Enterprise system to assist officers with performance and monitoring of productivity. Development of Enterprise Workflow is linked to role out of IDOX Document Management System (DMS) which will replace Civica. This related project has been delayed due to issues outwith the control of ABC. 2:08 Review DM manual Commenced June 2023 HOS Development Manager / ATLs / Sys. Techs COMPLETED FQ2 2024/25 Internal Audit Action Continue to update the manual to ensure all DM Officers provide a consistent approach to decision making. Action is linked to 2:07 and has been subject to delays accrued by the wider role out of the new IDOX DMS Page 274
Page 275
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … In light of delays to IDOX DMS an updated process note updating and existing processes has been completed FQ2 2024/25 2:09 To invest in IT improvements and training staff as part of a wider Council transformation programme Commenced 2022 HOS Development Manager and Team Leaders; Planning Policy Manager. Sys. Techs. PROJECT CANCELLED FQ2 2024/25 Implementation of IDOX DMS and enhanced Public Access to support development of the digital office with streamlined back office systems; Focus on efficient and improved decision making. IDOX Document Management System (DMS) was intended to replace Civica. This related project has been impacted by issues outwith the control of ABC. DM componment of project group will refocus and seek to maximise potential of existing systems from FQ3 2024/25 2:10 Agree clear protocols on when consultee advice is needed and timescales for delivering the advice Sept. 2023 Rescheduled for FQ4 2023/24 HOS Development Manager and Planning Policy Manager. IN PROGRESS Providing clear and consistent advice to all Officers on when to trigger consultations and expected timescales for delivery. Linked to 2:11 Draft document prepared FQ4 2023/24 and circulated to officers. Page 275
Page 276
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … 2:11 Review and seek new Service Level Agreement with ABC Roads to improve consultation process/content. Include formal process for escalation and determining items where disagreement cannot be resolved (PPSL? – DM resource issues?) FQ4 2023/24 HOS Head of D&EG / Development Manager / Roads IN PROGRESS Follow up expected launch of updated ABC Roads Design Guide with Training / Roles Templates / Service Level Agreement Monthly Area based liaison meetings scheduled from Feb 2024 forward. (1st meeting 22nd Feb 2024) Quarterly meetings of DM/Roads Management team scheduled from FQ4 2023/24 forward 2:12 Review RoH templates and guidance for officers in light of both NPF4 & LDP2 with a FQ4 2023/24 Development Manager Development Manager / ATLs / Sys. Tech IN PROGRESS Review reporting requirements with a view to streamlining RoHs and improving officer productivity. Benchmarking with other LA’s, review of legislative requirements, review of Uniform system capabilities / Officer training Page 276
Page 277
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … view to streamlining and providing greater consistency across officers and teams in terms of output and effort required. Linked to actions 2:07 and 2:08 Updated templates to accommodate LDP2 rolled out Feb 2024. 2:13 Review RoH sign off process and guidance to improve opportunity to provide sign off cover across ATL / SPO staff FQ1 2024/25 Development Manager Development Manager / ATLs / Sys. Techs IN PROGRESS Linked to actions 1:04 and 2:12 Requires regrading of SPOs Seek to improve efficiency of RoH sign of process alongside improved use of systems for producing RoHs. 2:14 Review processes and procedures in relation to the handling, publication, and reporting of third FQ2 2024/25 Development Manager Development Manager / Legal / PPSL NOT STARTED Seek to reduce opportunity for submission of late reps – reduce disruption to determination process. Require to be completed in time to feed into review of Scheme of Delegation in Sept. 2024 Page 277
Page 278
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … party representations. 2:15 Review of model conditions. FQ4 2023/24 Rescheduled for FQ2 2024/25 Development Manager Development Manager / ATLs / Sys. Tech IN PROGRESS Require to review model conditions to ensure these remain competent in relation to LDP2 Seek to update model conditions within Uniform system to improve ease of use. 2:16 Review process and resource for discharge of conditions. Streamline and make better use of systems. FQ3 2024/25 Development Manager Development Manager / ATLs / Sys. Tech NOT STARTED Require new process to identify and allocate resource for discharge of condition and to ensure competent and consistent handling/recording. Potential to charge – future revenue stream either for additional resource or savings but requires investment in process/systems development before this can be realised. 2:17 Review processes and procedures to streamline the handling and determination of FQ3 2023/24 Development Manager Development Manager / ATLs / Sys. Tech IN PROGRESS Review the processes and procedures for handling of ‘minor’ casework items including statutory notifications under the GPDO. Opportunity to streamline procedures and minimise the use of professional officer time required for reporting and review of less complex items. Page 278
Page 279
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … statutory notifications. TELNOT notification process completed Jan 2024. Work continuing to look at revised process for Prior Notification items. Improvement Area 3 - Officer Attraction, Retention, Morale and Wellbeing ACTION TIMESCALE TO COMMENCE LEAD OFFICER DELIVERY STATUS/RESOURCES Notes/Comments 3:01 Work with HR and Communications team to improve planning adverts to help recruitment. Spring 2023 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED FQ4 2022/23 Improved advert narrative generated; Link in to AB the Place To Be campaign. Working with HR to engage with potential future planners through careers fairs, development of promotional material. 3:02 Ensure time for staff to come together and talk about issues they are facing Summer 2023 Rescheduled for Summer 2024 HOS Development manager/Planning Policy Manager IN PROGRESS Taking time for face to face meeting across the planning service and sharing issues between team members; Increasing return of staff to office environment has improved staff interrelations along with annual conference and LDP2 training which afforded Page 279
Page 280
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … opportunity for face to face interactions. Morale within DM Service remains low however. DP/DM Annual Conference Scheduled for April 2024 Revised office accommodation and equipment secured in Oban and Helensburgh 3:03 Implement annual training day/away day for staff to look at implemented decisions in a selected area Autumn 2023 Rescheduled for Summer 2024 HOS TO BE RESCHEDULED Review in light of introduction to LDP2 to highlight best practice and case studies delivered on the ground. 3:04 Review training and development needs for the team, identify appropriate training opportunities to retain and upskill staff, ‘to Commenced Nov 2023 HOS Development Manager and Planning Policy Manager ON GOING Relaunch ‘Careers Conversations’ to identify staff training requirements and discussion on performance. Career’s conversations and development of DM training plan for 2024/25 to be completed across DM Service by end of FQ 4 2023/24. Update: FQ2 24/25 Training Plan to be finalised. Page 280
Page 281
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … grow our own’ and ensure skill gaps are met and to maintain succession planning at all levels within the team. 3:05 Hold Argyll and Bute Design Competition to better recognise outcomes on the ground. Summer 23 repeated every 2 years. HOS Planning Policy Manager COMPLETED FQ2 2023/24 Nominations for design competition closed with public vote underway. Awards ceremony held Summer 2023 Improvement Area 4 - Communication and Engagement with Residents, partners and Colleagues ACTION TIMESCALE TO COMMENCE LEAD OFFICER DELIVERY STATUS/RESOURCES Notes/Comments 4:01 Hold regular meetings with internal and external FQ3 2023/24 HOS Development manager and Team Leader ON GOING Establish dates where meetings with agents; internal and external stakeholders will be held Linked to actions 2:10 and 2:11 Page 281
Page 282
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … stakeholders of the DM Service Regular liaison meetings with Forestry Land Scotland / SEPA / Roads / SSEN established. Regular liaison meetings with EH / HES / Nature Scot still TBA Customer User forum scheduled for 1st October 2024 4:02 Carry out well publicised quick wins through improvements to the accessibility of the website and improved customer response times FQ4 2023/24 Rescheduled for FQ1 2024/25 HOS Development Manager/Planning Policy Manager and Communications Team IN PROGRESS Ensure planning is centre placed in the council’s new website; Establish clear communication protocols with officers and Developers utilising additional admin support. Initial review of website content commenced along and discussion with Web Team initiated 4:03 Improve communication with the development industry through a greater focus on local agents and restarting Autumn 2023 Rescheduled for FQ4 2023/24 Rescheduled for FQ2 2024/25 HOS Development Manager / Development Policy Manager IN PROGRESS User forum to be reinitated – arrangements to be confirmed during FQ4 2023/24 FQ2 2024/25 Action rescheduled to allow engagement with local Agents following adoption of LDP2. Key staff absence has also reduced resource available during FQ3 2023/24 to progress arrangements. User Forum to be held 1st October 2024 as a hybrid event Page 282
Page 283
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … developer forum (s) 4:04 Direct Members to the Members portal to register complaints regarding the planning service to enable a consistency of approach to be taken. Summer 2023 HOS Development Manager COMPLETED Improving complaint handling/customer relation position has seen an increase in the use of Member Portal for local member enquiries. No further action required at this time. 4:05 Work with the communications team to establish approaches to counter negative media coverage and celebrate good stories Summer 2023 HOS Development Manager ONGOING Improving complaint handling/customer relation position has reduced the requirement for proactive intervention at this time. Opportunities to provide positive coverage of DM Service and performance remain under review. Page 283
Page 284
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … 4:06 Seek to ensure that all applications are either determined within the statutory timescale, or where this is not possible ensure that an extension period is communicated. Commenced Summer 2023 Development Manager Development Manager / ATLs / POs / Sys. Tech IMPLEMENTED New process to record and provide agents with extension of time in place. Remains under review with requirement for regular reinforcement. Significant reduction in customer complaints following introduction. Page 284
Page 285
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th September 2024 Development Management Charter 2024 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks the endorsement of the Development Management Charter that is attached as Appendix A. 1.2 The Development Management Charter is intended to inform customer expectations by providing an overview of the Development Management Service, the Development Management Process, and to set out the standard of service that customers should expect in terms of both performance and the manner in which a service is delivered. 1.3 It is recommended that the Committee approve and endorse the Development Management Charter 2024 (Appendix A) Page 285 Agenda Item 11
Page 286
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th September 2024 Development Management Charter 2024 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 This report seeks the endorsement of the Development Management Charter which is attached as Appendix A. 2.2 The Charter is intended as a complimentary document to the Development Management Service Plan 2024 – 2026. The Charter provides customers with a summary overview of the Development Management Service and its key functions. 2.3 The Charter also sets out expectations in relation to the service standards that all customers can expect in their dealings with the Development Management Service. 2.4 Whilst the related Development Management Service Plan 2024 – 2026 sets out a wide range of performance targets and improvement actions it is recognised that the content of that document is aimed at driving the internal management of the Development Management Service. The Service Standards set out within the Development Management Charter 2024 are a summarised version of the key performance targets relating to the progression of planning applications and are intended to inform expectations on how casework will be progressed, and performance monitored. 2.5 The Development Management Charter also seeks to direct customers to relevant sources of information that is available online and will assist them to ‘self-serve’ where possible; details on how to contact the Development Management Service or to raise issue via the Council’s Corporate Complaint process. 2.6 It is recommended that the Committee:- approve and endorse the Development Management Charter 2024 (Appendix A) 3.0 IMPLICATIONS 3.1 Policy: None 3.2 Financial: None 3.3 Legal: None 3.4 HR : None Page 286
Page 287
3.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 3.5.1 Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None 3.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: A consistent and proportionate approach to planning enforcement is essential for natural justice. 3.5.3 Islands: None 3.6 Climate Change: None 3.7 Risk: None. 3.8 Customer Service: The DM Charter identifies key performance indicators for measuring the performance of the DM Service, and in doing so, setting customer expectations on the service level to be provided. 3.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - None Executive Director of with responsibility for Development & Economic Growth:- Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead:- Cllr Kieron Green 10th September 2024 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix A – Development Management Charter 2024 Page 287
Page 288
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 289
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … . Draft August 2024 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARTER Note: Cover Photos and Document Date to be Updated Prior to Publication APPENDIX A Page 289
Page 290
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … The Development Management Service This charter sets out the service standards that you can expect from the Development Management Service. Our aim is to always meet the timescales set out in these standards however there will be times when this will not be possible. Development Management is a key part of the Council’s Planning Service and includes: Determination of planning and related applications under delegated powers, or by referal of more complex/contentious items to the Planning, Protective Services & Licencing (PPSL) Committee; Enforcement of planning regulations and condition monitoring; (subject to the Council’s Planning Enforcement & Monitoring Charter) The provision of pre-application advice to prospective applicants; Representation of the Council in matters that are subject to appeal, or require to be notified to Scottish Ministers for their determination via the Directorate for Planning & Environmental Appeals (DPEA) The provision of information to assist the Argyll and Bute Local Review Board in their determination of applications which are subject to Local Review; Representation of the Council as professional witnesses at Public Local Inquiry on planning and related matters. Assessment and determination of applications for a High Hedge Notice. Help Us to Help You A range of information about the Development Management Service and to to engage with its activities is published on the Council’s website. www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building The Council’s website includes information to assist customers: identify whether planning permission is required; how to request pre-application planning advice; prepare and submit new applications; to view planning applications and submit representations offering support or objection; to access and review the Local Development Plan policies and maps Page 290
Page 291
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Our Commitment Development Management as a regulatory function plays a key role in the delivery of sustainable economic growth. Our aspiration is to deliver an excellent standard of service as an efficient and effective planning authority, and to uphold the following key principles within the development and delivery of the Development Management Service: Professional Standards We will act with honesty and intergity at all times, seeking to uphold professional standards in our engagement with all stakeholders. Equality We will treat all users of the Development Management Service fairly, objectively and with respect. All decisions will be made on the basis of their planning merits and in the public interest. Accessible We will make planning information clear and easy to access. We will set out clear arrangements on how to contact us and on how to comment on applications. Customer feedback will be taken into account and utilised toward the continuous improvement of the Development Management Service. Transparent We will make information about planning applications and decisions, and the justification for reaching that outcome available via the Public Access Service on the Council website. Responsive We will provide timely advice and planning decisions. We will monitor our performance and look to identify ways to improve the speed and quality of the Development Management Service. Consistency We will provide accurate and useful planning advice. We will make planning decisions that seek to achieve high quality outcomes that support the delivery of sustainable development and the strategic aims of the Council and the Scottish Government as expressed through the Development Plan. Efficient Where it is identified that an application is unable to be supported then we will clearly communicate the issues of concern in a timely manner, accompanied where appropriate by advice on what action/clarification is required by the applicant to prospectively overcome those issues. Where such issues are unable to be resolved within a reasonable and agreed time period, then applications will be progressed to a formal determination at the earliest opportunity thereafter. Page 291
Page 292
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … The Development Management Process in Scotland Extract from "A Guide to the Planning System in Scotland" - The Scottish Government 2009 Page 292
Page 293
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Service Standards General: We will aim to provide customer service in accordance with the standards set out in Argyll and Bute Council’s Customer Service Charter. Planning Applications: We will aim to undertake an initial validation check within 5 working days from receipt. Where a site visit is required, we will aim to undertake this within 20 working days from receipt of a valid application. We will aim to determine more than 65% of ‘householder’ applications within 2 months, and all ‘householder’ applications in an average timescale of less than 10 weeks$*#. We will aim to determine more than 45% of ‘local’ (non-householder) applications in less than 2 months, and all ‘local’ (non- householder) applications in an average timescale of less than 16 weeks$*#. We will aim to determine all ‘major’ applications within an average timescale of less than 43 weeks$*#. $ time measured from date of validation. * excluding applications which are subject to a processing agreement or an agreed extension. #Performance targets are set to be within 10% of the ‘National Average’ based on Scottish Government Statistical reporting. We will aim to determine 90% of Prior Notification submissions within the statutory time period. Where it is not possible to determine an application within the statutory time period then we will, whereever possible, seek in advance to formally agree an extension to that time period (Processing Agreement). Where an extension to statutory time periods are agreed and/or a processing agreement is put in place, we will aim to determine: - 80% of householder applications#; - 70% of ‘local non householder’ applications#; and, - 60% of ‘major’ applications# within the agreed extended time period. We will aim to issue decisions within 2 working days of an application being determined. Pre-Application Enquiries: We will aim to issue a response to 75% of ‘local’ pre-application enquiries within 30 working days We will aim to issue a response to 75% of ‘major’ pre-application enquiries within 40 working days Where it is not possible to respond to a pre- application enquiry in time we will in advance seek to advise of the reason for delay and the extended time period required to issue a response. Post Determination Submissions: We will acknowledge receipt of submission of a Notice of Initiation of Development / Notice of Completion of Development within 5 working days. We will aim to issue a decision on submissions for the discharge of planning conditions within 30 working days from date of receipt; We will aim to determine requests for a Non-Material Amendment within: - 20 working days for ‘householder’ permissions; - 30 working days for ‘local’ permissions; and - 40 working days for ‘major’ permissions. Page 293
Page 294
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Monitoring Our Performance We will undertake annual reporting via a National Planning Improvement Framework report, biannual statistical returns to the Scottish Government, and quarterly performance through reporting to the Council’s Senior Management and Planning, Protective Services & Licensing Committee to check whether we are meeting our service standards and these targets will be reviewed annually. We Want to Hear From Customers How to provide feedback: Customers views and opinions are important to help us improve the Development Management Service. You can contact us in the following ways: Email: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk Post: The Development Manager, Argyll and Bute Council - Development & Economic Growth 1A Manse Brae, Lochgilphead Argyll, PA31 8RD Complaints: We aim to always provide a high standard of service. However, it is recognised that sometimes problems do arise. If you wish to raise a complaint, then please refer to the Council’s formal Complaints Procedure: www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/my-council/complaints Please note that the complaint procedure is not an avenue to formally appeal against the interpretation of policy or the outcome of a planning decision. The Complaint Procedure is an appropriate route to raise concerns about the processing of an application or the conduct of officers. If, having followed the Council’s Complaint Procedure, you remain unhappy then you may take your complaint to the Scottish Public Service Ombudsman (SPSO). Please note that the Ombudsman does not ordinarily accept complaints that have not first been the subject of the Council’s own complaint procedure. Page 294
Page 295
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th September 2024 Updated Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Charter 2024 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks the endorsement of an updated Argyll and Bute Enforcement and Monitoring Charter which is contained at Appendix A. Enforcement Charters should be reviewed every 2 years and they must outline what service we provide to our customers and complainants in relation to breaches and alleged breaches of planning control. 1.2 Our Charter outlines a proportionate and pragmatic approach to planning enforcement to ensure our environment and economy can co-exist and complement each other. Effective regulation and enforcement is also essential to ensure that all developers operate on a ‘level playing field’ and the aspirations of the Council’s development strategy (contained within our Development Plan) are turned into reality on the ground. 1.3 It is recommended that the Committee approve and endorse the updated Enforcement and Monitoring Charter 2024 (Appendix A) Page 295 Agenda Item 12
Page 296
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee Development & Economic Growth 18th September 2024 Updated Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Charter 2024 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 This report seeks the endorsement of the updated Argyll and Bute Enforcement and Monitoring Charter which is contained at Appendix A. 2.2 The Scottish Government stipulates that Enforcement Charters should be reviewed every 2 years and they must outline what service we provide to our customers and complainants in relation to breaches and alleged breaches of planning control. 2.3 Enforcement is one of the most complex parts of the planning system. Effective and timely enforcement is essential for public confidence, fairness and natural justice. The aim of this Charter is to ensure that adopted procedures are fair and reasonable, and that interested parties are kept informed and are made aware of what is required. Enforcement is an issue that concerns many members of the public. 2.4 The Council’s Enforcement Service contributes to the making of (and more so the protecting of) our great places and physical environment which is consistent with the Single Outcome Agreement, the Council’s Corporate Plan objectives and the Planning Service Plan objectives. 2.5 The purpose of planning enforcement is to resolve a problem rather than to punish a mistake. However, the presumption remains that development should be authorised in advance and the regularisation of development after the event by retrospective proposals should be the exception, where there have been inadvertent breaches of control or deviations from previously approved plans, for example. Any action taken has to be appropriate to the scale of the breach and we seek to work progressively with customers seeking negotiated solutions before recourse to formal enforcement intervention. 2.6 We also undertake strategic monitoring of consents and these may trigger an enforcement file to be opened and investigated. Given the number of planning consents and geographic size of Argyll and Bute we cannot strategically monitor or review all consents. We give priority to major applications, controversial developments or those in sensitive locations 2.7 This Charter explains how the enforcement process works, the role of the Council and the service standards it sets itself. It also explains what happens at each stage of what can be a lengthy process. Page 296
Page 297
2.8 The Charter reflects increased levels of fines as introduced by s42 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. It is noted that the provisions of s43 and s44 of the 2019 Act will respectively introduce additional powers to utilise Charging Orders and a requirements relating to the monitoring and reporting relating to ‘Major’ developments. The detail of what this will entail is still not yet known however as the Scottish Government’s work programme on implementing planning reform has been delayed by the pandemic. It is considered that it would be appropriate to undertake a more comprehensive review and update of the Enforcement and Monitoring Charter at that time if necessary rather than wait for the two year review period in 2026. 2.9 Performance reporting measures for Planning Enforcement are set out within the Development Management Service Plan. The Service Plan includes commentary which notes an intention to undertake a review of workflow and use of back office systems for planning enforcement and identifies that this will provide an opportunity to improve the manner in which data is collected and can be used for performance reporting purposes. It is intended to commence this service improvement in FQ3 2024/25 with the intention of providing enhanced performance reporting on enforcement functions from FQ1 2025/26, it is currently envisaged that this will also include for an early review of the Planning Enforcement & Monitoring Charter to ensure that this reflects any revised/additional performance targets. 2.10 It is recommended that the Committee:- approve and endorse the updated Enforcement and Monitoring Charter 2024 (Appendix A) 3.0 IMPLICATIONS 3.1 Policy: None 3.2 Financial: None 3.3 Legal: None 3.4 HR : None 3.5 Fairer Scotland Duty: 3.5.1 Equalities – Protected Characteristics: None 3.5.2 Socio-economic Duty: A consistent and proportionate approach to planning enforcement is essential for natural justice. 3.5.3 Islands: None 3.6 Climate Change: None 3.7 Risk: Reputational risk if planning enforcement is not adequately resourced or intervention taken. Development Plan and spatial vision for the Council would be undermined. 3.8 Customer Service: Charter defines expected service standards for planning enforcement customers. 3.9 The Rights of the Child (UNCRC) - None Page 297
Page 298
Executive Director with responsibility for Development & Economic Growth:- Kirsty Flanagan Policy Lead:- Cllr Kieron Green 10th September 2024 For further information contact: Peter Bain – 01546 604204 APPENDICES Appendix A – Planning Enforcement and Monitoring Charter 2024 Page 298
Page 299
Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Reviewed September 2024 - DRAFT PLANNING ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING CHARTER APPENDIX A Note - Document date to be updated prior to publication Page 299
Page 300
2 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … This Charter outlines the procedures and standards of service that customers can expect when they make enquiries to Argyll and Bute Council about development that may not be permitted under the relevant laws. The Charter also identifies the ways we monitor planning permissions and sets out the enforcement powers currently available to the Council. These powers include the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as amended by the Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019. Copies of this Charter are available on the Council’s website at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk, and at the following Council offices: Kilmory Castle, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RT 1A Manse Brae, Lochgilphead, Argyll PA31 8RD Municipal Buildings, Albany Street, Oban, PA34 4AW Argyll House, Alexandra Parade, Dunoon, PA23 8AJ Helensburgh & Lomond Civic Centre, 38 East Clyde Street, Helensburgh G84 7PG Argyll and Bute Council welcomes feedback on this Charter, how it could be improved and how the Council could improve the service it provides. Any feedback should be sent: By email to: planning.hq@argyll-bute.gov.uk Or by post to: Development Manager 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RD Page 300
Page 301
3 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. Introduction and context 4 2. Breaches of Planning Control 5 3. Investigating Breaches of Planning Control 6 4. Acting on Breaches of Planning Control 7-8 5. Enforcement Powers 9-13 6. Service Commitments, Outcomes and Monitoring 14 7. Monitoring Our Performance 15 8. Corporate Council Complaints 15 9. Argyll and Bute Council Planning Enforcement Contacts and Other Useful Information 16-17 Page 301
Page 302
4 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Planning permission is required for most development that takes place in Scotland, with the exception of some minor works. However, developers or householders sometimes undertake work without planning permission or fail to comply with the terms of planning permissions. The purpose of planning enforcement is to resolve a problem rather than to punish a mistake. Any action taken has to be appropriate to the scale of the breach. Councils have discretionary powers to enforce planning controls in such cases, if they consider it is in the public interest and expedient to do so having regard to a deemed assessment against the Local Development Plan and material planning considerations. Councils also monitor certain developments to ensure planning controls are being followed. Additionally, the public often alert the council to problems they become aware of. This Charter explains how the enforcement process works, the role of the Council and the service standards it sets itself. It also explains what happens at each stage of what can be a lengthy process. Enforcement is one of the most complex parts of the planning system. Effective and timely enforcement is essential for public confidence, fairness and natural justice. The aim of this Charter is to ensure that adopted procedures are fair and reasonable, and that interested parties are kept informed and are made aware of what is required. Enforcement is an issue that concerns many members of the public. Following the provisions of Scottish Government Circular 10/2009 – Planning Enforcement ensures that actions taken are in line with national practices and current Scottish Government guidance. The Council’s Enforcement Service contributes to delivery of the Local Outcome Improvement Plan objectives, the Council’s Corporate Plan objectives and the Planning Service Plan objectives. We hope you will find this Charter useful and will let us know if you think we could improve the service further. The Council’s Enforcement Service contributes to the making of (and more so the protecting of) our great places and physical environment. The Council’s whole development strategy is only as good as its implementation ‘on the ground’ and our Officers have a key role in ensuring that the key outcomes of the Development Plan or relevant planning decision are delivered to the benefit of our economy, communities and environment. The reputation of the Council and our economy as a whole must also be upheld by a proportionate enforcement strategy. Our businesses need a fair, equitable and safe environment to grow based upon effective and proportionate regulation and control. Planning Enforcement and Monitoring is at the heart of this by ensuring developers operate on a level playing field in respect of the planning system and investments are underpinned by the certainty of a plan led system that is effectively enforced. Monitoring and Enforcement Performance Indicators The Council currently record a number of performance indicators stipulated by the Scottish Government including:- • Number of cases investigated • Number of Cases Taken up • Number of Breaches Identified • Notices Serves • Number of Prosecutions • Number of breaches resolved Page 302
Page 303
5 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 2: BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL Although this Charter relates to the enforcement of planning legislation, it is important to note that planning enforcement also includes legal obligations (S75), listed buildings, tree preservation orders and advertisement regulations. Whilst the legal enforcement procedures may differ, the objectives remain the same; the control and regulation of development and cessation of unauthorised or undesirable development, as well as the remediation and reinstatement of land where necessary. It should also be noted that it is at the Council’s discretion whether it is expedient or appropriate to take enforcement action. Most breaches of planning control are not a criminal office, however, works to protected trees, the display of unauthorised adverts, works to listed buildings or unauthorised works within a Conservation Area are potentially criminal offences and a more formal approach may be required. For the purposes of this Charter, a breach of planning control is defined as: Anyone can make a complaint if they are concerned that there has been a breach of planning control. The public play a vital role in reporting these breaches to the Council. Enquiries can be made by telephone to the relevant area office but must be followed up in writing or by e-mail. Information will be treated as confidential as far as the law allows, in accordance with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOI), the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIR), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Information will not be released where it is not in the public interest to do so unless as a result of a ruling by the Scottish Information Commissioner or court of law. On occasions elected Members, MP’s or MSP’s may seek information on enforcement cases from Planning Enforcement Officers. When this happens, basic information will be supplied, such as whether or not a breach of planning control has been identified or whether any notices have been served. Additional information may be subject to release under the FOI or EIR after enforcement cases have been concluded. Please note the Council will not investigate anonymous complaints unless the alleged breach is considered, by the relevant Area Team Leader, to be so serious to demand an immediate investigation. Complaints that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority such as neighbour disputes or civil matters cannot be investigated through the Council’s planning enforcement procedures. • Development being carried out without the benefit of planning permission • The carrying out of development or alterations to a Listed Building or within a Conservation Area without the required consents (which are criminal offences) • A failure to comply with any condition, Section 75 obligation or limitation attached to any planning permission or related consent • Unauthorised works to protected trees • An unauthorised change of use • Departure from approved plans or consent • Noncompliance with planning conditions • Unauthorised display of advertisement DETAILS REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE AN ALLEGED BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL • The name and address of the person who is suspected to have performed the breach of planning control • The location of the site (a map showing the site would be useful) • Details of the suspected breach with times, dates, etc. • How long has the alleged breach taken place • Explanation of the harm that the alleged breach is causing and how it affects you • Your contact details, including if available, an e-mail address and phone details • Whether or not you wish the enquiry to be treated as confidential Page 303
Page 304
6 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 3: INVESTIGATING BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL All enforcement complaints received by the Council will be processed in accordance with the Argyll and Bute Council Customer Service Charter which can be viewed online at https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/my-council/plans-and- policy/customer-service-charter-and-strategy A written complaint will be acknowledged within 3 working days. The case will then be passed to the relevant Officer who will undertake an investigation. This will normally require a site inspection and a determination as to whether or not there has been a breach of planning control. Where no breach of planning control has been established the complainant will be advised of the outcome and the case will be closed. Please note that the opening of an investigation does not necessarily mean that a breach has occurred or that formal action will be taken. One of the priority rating timescales, listed below, will be applied to each case. Owing to home/hybrid working arrangements introduced in response to Covid and the geography of Argyll and Bute including many remote settlements and islands, some site inspections may fall out with the priority timescale shown. Each case is assessed so as they have a level of priority, these are outlined below. Level 1 Priority – (site visit within 5 working days of acknowledgement of complaint) • Works being undertaken in contravention of the requirements of a formal notice • The unauthorised demolition or alterations of a listed building or the demolition of or alterations to a building within a Conservation Area • Unauthorised works to trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order or to trees in Conservation Areas • Unauthorised development that may lead to substantial and/or permanent damage to sites of international or national importance, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Scenic Areas or Special Protection Areas etc. • Unauthorised development or breach of condition that may present an immediate danger to members of the public i.e. road safety, health and safety or bad neighbour development, which has a significant detrimental impact on amenity (in the sole view of the Council) Level 2 Priority – (site visit within 15 working days of acknowledgement of complaint) • Unauthorised development, likely to cause harm to the landscape or residential amenity • Changes of use of land or buildings resulting in a potential adverse impact upon existing levels of amenity • General breaches of planning conditions • Unauthorised householder developments with the potential for limited impact, i.e. garden sheds, replacement windows etc. within a Conservation Area Level 3 Priority – (site visits within 20 working days of acknowledgement of complaint) • Unauthorised householder developments with the potential for limited impact, i.e. garden sheds, replacement windows etc. • Unauthorised advertisements (unless they are likely to have an immediate adverse effect on road safety) • Untidy land • All other potential breaches of planning control Page 304
Page 305
7 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 4: ACTING ON BREACHES OF PLANNING CONTROL The Council has statutory powers to investigate beaches of planning control and the conditions attached to planning consents, and to take formal action where a satisfactory outcome cannot be achieved by negotiation. However, enforcement is a discretionary power. This means that, even where there is a breach of planning control, the Council has to consider if it is in the public interest to take enforcement action. The Council is not required to take any particular action on a specific breach of planning control and, indeed, can decide that no action is necessary. The Council must consider each case on its own merits and decide on the best solution. As part of a deemed assessment of enforcement cases, the Council must have regard to the Development Plan and other material planning considerations. In many cases breaches are resolved through negotiation or the submission of a retrospective planning application and no formal action will be taken. Where a breach of planning control has been established, it is the Council’s objective to proceed in the following manner: 1. Negotiation It is often possible to rectify a breach of planning control through negotiation with the parties involved as formal enforcement action is only taken as a last resort In some instances, even though a breach of control has occurred, it may not be appropriate to take further action. This is because the Council has to consider whether, having regard to the circumstances of each case it is necessary and proportionate to issue an enforcement notice. A high number of enforcement cases are resolved through negotiation. 2. Retrospective Application There is opportunity to submit a retrospective application seeking to regularise development which has been either wholly or partially completed, either to address inadvertent breaches of control, or to address development which deviates from previously approved plans. Recourse to retrospective applications should be in exceptional circumstances and is not encouraged routinely, as there are risks associated with the merits of development being considered after it has been executed, and uncertainties associated with views which may be expressed by consultees and the public during the process means that there is no guarantee of a positive outcome. Whilst retrospective applications will be assessed on a “without prejudice basis”, their persistent and intentional use on individual projects is undesirable and may lead to further formal enforcement. 3. Formal Action Where it is determined that formal action must be taken to resolve an enforcement case the Council must determine the most appropriate type of formal action to take (see Chapter 5 for more information). This normally involves the serving of either an enforcement notice, Section 33A notice, or breach of condition notice. These notices include the following information: • A description of the breach that has taken place • The steps that should be taken to remedy the breach • The timescale for these steps to be taken • The consequences of failure to comply with the notice • Rights of appeal where appropriate Page 305
Page 306
8 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Only a small number of cases require to be dealt with by formal enforcement action. Any notice served on land or buildings will appear against that property on any future property searches, regardless of any change in ownership, until such time as the terms of the notice have been met. Enforcement Register Details of enforcement notices, section 33A notices (see Chapter 5), breach of condition notices, advertisement notices and stop notices are entered into the Council’s enforcement register which is a public document. The enforcement register for each area office is available for inspection at the relevant address or the complete register is available on the Council’s web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk. Powers of Entry The Council has powers to enter land to: • Establish if there has been a breach of planning control, • To check whether there has been compliance with a formal notice, • To check whether a breach has been satisfactorily resolved. Time Limit Enforcement action must be taken within strict time limits. A time limit of four years for enforcement action applies to “unauthorised operational development” (i.e. the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land) and change of use to a single dwellinghouse. After four years following the breach of planning control the development becomes lawful, and no enforcement action can be taken, although this does not mean that the unauthorised development benefits from planning permission. A time limit of ten years for enforcement action applies to all other development including change of use (other than to a single dwellinghouse) and breaches of condition, after which the development becomes lawful if no enforcement action is commenced and as with the time limit for “operational development”, whilst enforcement action cannot be taken, this does not mean that the unauthorised development benefits from planning permission. Council Land In circumstances where a breach of planning control relates to land within the ownership of the Council it is advised that it would generally not be appropriate for Planning Services to pursue formal enforcement action against another Council Service on the basis that the Council is unable to take legal action upon itself as the Council is a single legal entity. Council ownership of land does not preclude the undertaking of a planning enforcement investigation however whenever such circumstances arise it is expected that the responsible Service, once informed of the breach of planning control, will take all reasonable steps which are necessary to resolve the matter. Page 306
Page 307
9 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 5: ENFORCEMENT POWERS Enforcement powers are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, Listed Building and Conservation Areas (Scotland) Act 1997 and Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) 1984. Further guidance is set out in: • Circular 10/2009: Planning Enforcement • Scottish Government Planning Circular 1/2011: Tree Preservation Orders • Advertisements (Scottish Office Development Department Circular 10/1984) • Argyll and Bute Planning Services Advertisement & Signage Policy Technical Working Notes 2017 The circulars can be viewed at https://www.gov.scot/collections/planning-circulars/ TYPES OF NOTICES There are a number of different types of notice that the Council has power to serve under the Planning Acts and related legislation. A notice can require the contravener to remedy the breach of planning control or where more urgent action is required the contravener must cease activity with immediate effect. • Enforcement Notice – This notice is used to deal with unauthorised development and breaches of planning conditions. An enforcement notice will specify; the breach, a notification period before it comes into effect (a minimum of 28 days), the steps that must be taken to remedy the breach and a compliance period by the Council. The compliance period must be reasonable and reflect the amount of work that needs to be undertaken. There are limited grounds of appeal to Scottish Ministers against enforcement notices and, if an appeal is made, the notice is suspended until the decision is reached. Full details of the appeal process is attached to the notice. Failure to comply with the terms of an enforcement notice within the time specified is an offence, and may lead to the imposition of a fine of up to £50,000 in the Sheriff Court or direct action. The notice requires to be served on any person carrying out the unauthorised development and/or any person having control of the land where the development is being carried out. • Breach of Condition Notice – This type of notice is used to enforce the conditions applied to any planning permission. It comes into effect 28 days after being served. It may be used as an alternative to an enforcement notice and is served on any person carrying out the unauthorised development and/or any person having control of the land where the development is being carried out. There is no right of appeal against this type of notice. Contravening a breach of condition notice is an offence and may lead to the imposition of a fine of up to £5,000. • Stop Notice – This is served in urgent or serious cases where an unauthorised activity must be stopped to safeguard amenity or public safety and/or to prevent serious or irreversible harm to the environment and the surrounding area. When a stop notice is served, the Council must also issue an enforcement notice. The stop notice takes effect between 1-3 days after it has been served and will outline the steps which must be taken to comply with the notice. There is no right of appeal against a stop notice and failure to comply with its terms is an offence and may lead to a fine of up to £50,000 in the Sherriff Court, though an appeal can be made against the accompanying enforcement notice. If a stop notice is served without due cause or an appeal against the enforcement notice is successful, the stop notice may be quashed and the Council may face claims for compensation. Page 307
Page 308
10 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … • Listed Building Enforcement Notice – The Council may serve a listed building notice where unauthorised works have been, or are being, undertaken to a listed building. This notice must be served on the current owner, occupier and anyone else with an interest in the property. The notice must specify the steps to be taken to remedy the breach and a compliance period. Failure to meet the terms of the notice by the date specified is an offence. There is a right of appeal to Scottish Ministers against the notice. It is a criminal offence to execute or cause to be undertaken any works to demolish, alter, or extend a listed building which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised. The legislation also extends to the interiors as well as the exteriors of statutory listed buildings. Unlike a breach of planning control unauthorised works to listed buildings can never become immune from enforcement action. • Advertisement Enforcement Notice – This notice may be served by the Council where it appears to them that an advertisement has been displayed without the necessary consent, or without compliance with a condition or limitation attached to consent. The notice is served upon the owner, lessee and occupier of the land and on any other person known to the Council to be displaying the advertisement. The notice will require specific steps to be taken within a specified period to remove the advertisement, to restore the land to the condition it was in before the display began or to secure compliance with the condition or limitation. In addition the notice may specify, as an alternative, steps to be taken to bring the display up to an acceptable condition. Where any of the steps required by the notice have not been taken within the specified period the Council may enter the land and take those steps and recover its expenses from the owner or lessee of the land. Any person upon whom a notice of this type is served may appeal in writing to the Scottish Ministers. The siting or erection of an unauthorised advertisement is an offence, with a current maximum fine of £5,000. In cases where an advertisement has been placed on Council owned land or property without consent the advert may be removed and destroyed. Unlike a breach of planning control a breach of advertisement control can never become immune from enforcement action. • Advertisement Discontinuance Notice – Some advertisements may be displayed without the requirement for advertisement consent and are therefore lawful. Previously consented advertisements can remain on display beyond the 5 year consent period. However, the Council may serve a notice requiring the discontinuance of the display of that advertisement. • Notice Requiring Application for Planning Permission for Development Already Carried out (Section 33A Notice) – Where the Council considers that a development which does not have planning permission may be acceptable (i.e. they consider that it might be granted planning permission) they may issue a notice requiring the landowner or developer to submit a retrospective planning application. This application will be considered on its own merits and handled in the same way as any other planning application. Issuing such a notice does not guarantee that permission will be granted. The Council may, on consideration of the application, decide to refuse the application, or to grant permission subject to conditions to make the development acceptable. Failure to comply with the terms of a Section 33A notice may result in further enforcement action. Page 308
Page 309
11 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … (ii) OTHER POWERS/NOTICES OPEN TO USE BY ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL • Planning Contravention Notice – The Council may issue a planning contravention notice on the owner or occupier of any land, on any other person with an interest in such land, or on a person who is carrying out operations on the land in order to obtain information about activities where a breach of planning control is suspected. Those who receive a planning contravention notice are required to provide specified information about operations being carried out on the land. Failure to comply with the notice within 21 days of it being served is an offence with a current maximum fine of £5,000. • Fixed Penalty Notices – These provide the Council with an alternative process, in addition to the option to seek prosecution, to address situations where a person has failed to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice or a breach of condition notice. By paying the penalty imposed by a fixed penalty notice the person will discharge any liability for prosecution for the offence. They will not, however, discharge the obligation to comply with the terms of the enforcement or breach of condition notice and the Council will retain the power to take direct action to remedy the breach and recover the costs of such work from that person. This notice may be increasingly used as in intermediary option prior to taking direct action or in situations where a prosecution is unlikely to be taken up by the Procurator Fiscal. • Temporary Stop Notices – This is used to require the immediate halt of an activity which, in the Councils view, would cause significant damage to the environment and/or local amenity. A temporary stop notices should only be used where the Council consider that there is a clear and immediate need for such action. Temporary stop notices differ from stop notices in that they can be served with immediate effect and do not require to be served in conjunction with an enforcement notice. The notices ceases to have effect after 28 days after it has been displayed, unless a shorter period is specified in the notice, or the notice is withdrawn by the Council before it ceases to have effect. A temporary stop notice may however be followed by further enforcement action such as an enforcement notice and stop notice. There is no statutory right of appeal again a temporary stop notice. It is an offence to contravene a temporary stop notice which may lead to a fine of up to £50,000 in the Sherriff Court. • Listed Building Repairs Notice – This can be served by the Council on the owner of a listed building at any time if the owner fails to keep a listed building in a reasonable state of repair. Compulsory purchase can be initiated two months after service of a repairs notice. • Listed Building Urgent Works Notice – where it appears to the Council that any works are urgently necessary for the preservation of a listed building, they may execute the works that are required to any unoccupied part of the listed building after giving no less than 7 days written notice to the owner. The Council may give notice to the owner of the building requiring them to pay the cost of the works. • Land adversely affecting the Amenity of a Neighbourhood Notice (Section 179 Notice) – The Council may serve a notice on the owner, lessee or occupier of the land if it appears that the amenity of the area is adversely affected by the condition of the land or buildings. The notice sets out the steps to be taken to address the adverse effect of the condition of the land or buildings within a specified period. Page 309
Page 310
12 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … (iii) FURTHER CONTROLS • Tree Preservation Order and Trees in Conservation Areas – Trees within a Conservation Area or subject to a Tree Preservation Order are protected in law and it is an offence to cut down, uproot, willfully destroy a tree or willfully damage, top or lop a tree in such manner as to be likely to destroy it without the consent of the Planning Authority. You can check if a tree is within a Conservation Area or protected by a TPO online at https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/tree- preservation-orders • Interdict and Interim Interdicts – An Interdict is imposed by the Courts and is used to stop or prevent a breach of planning control. Court proceedings can prove costly and Interdicts are normally only sought in serious cases or where Enforcement Notices have been ignored in the past. However, the Council can seek an Interdict in relation to any breach without having to use other powers first. Breaching an Interdict is treated as a contempt of court and carries heavy penalties. • Direct Action – Failure to comply with the terms of an Enforcement Notice within the time specified can result in the Council carrying out the specified work. The Council can seek to recover any costs it incurs from the land owner. • Power to Require Information as to Interest in Land (Section 272 Notice) – This provides limited powers to obtain information on interests on land and the use of land. Failure to provide the information required is an offence. Further enforcement powers may be made available to the Council due to changes in legislation (such as the Historic Environment Act and following implementation of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019) and these will also be considered for use depending on the circumstances and merits of each individual case. OTHER POWERS • High Hedges: The High Hedges Act makes a range of provisions relative to high hedges in Scotland, that oblige the Council to act as arbiter where all other avenues to resolve a high hedge dispute have been exhausted. More detail for how the Act is administered within Argyll and Bute can be found at: http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/high-hedges-scotland-act OTHER COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES WHICH MAY BECOME INVOLVED • Building Standards: For example where a dangerous or structurally damaged building is involved or where unauthorised works are being carried out to or in a building the relevant complainants may be directed to Building Standards who may take action under The Building (Scotland) Act 2003. • Regulatory Services: Failure to comply with conditions relating to private water supplies, public safety, health issues, obtaining appropriate licenses or certificates may require investigation from colleagues within Regulatory Services. • Streetscene: Where a reported breach involves Council land or property, Council Officers from Streetscene department may remove unauthorised development/advertisements acting as landowner. • Roads Authority/ Trunk Roads Authority: Where it becomes apparent that an enforcement case is not a planning issue but a Roads or Trunk Roads issue. In cases like these the enforcement case is closed and the relevant complainant informed, the information is then passed to a Roads Technician to progress. The Roads Authority use a series of relevant legislation including the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 which includes power to remove unauthorised advertisements located within the roads corridor, falling under the control of the Roads Authority. Page 310
Page 311
13 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … • Procurator Fiscal: If it transpires that the Council considers an offence has taken place it is solely a matter for the Procurator Fiscal to decide on whether both sufficient evidence has been provided, and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. Such matters are not within the control of the Council. • Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA): SEPA deal with issues relating to Waste Management Regulation and Japanese Knotweed and more information can be found at http://www.sepa.org.uk/ • Police Scotland: The Police Scotland have the power to prosecute all criminal offences in relation to planning control and that in some high priority cases the council has the discretion to refer the matter to them to initiate criminal proceedings. ENFORCEMENT NOTICE APPEALS There is no right of appeal against some specific notices such as a Planning Contravention Notice, Breach of Condition Notice, Section 272 Notice and Section 33A Notice. Where appeal rights exist, appeals are submitted to and considered by Scottish Ministers. In almost all cases appeals are dealt with by Reporters from the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals. (DPEA) Such appeals are usually determined through the submission of written statements from both parties and a site inspection, although some cases are determined through a hearing or public local inquiry. Appeals must be made before the date the notice takes effect which is detailed on individual notices, and is normally 28 days after the notice is served. Appeals are made to: Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals 4 The Courtyard Callendar Business Park Callendar Road Falkirk FK1 1XR www.dpea.scotland.gov.uk Page 311
Page 312
14 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 6: SERVICE COMMITMENTS, OUTCOMES AND MONITORING All enforcement complaints received will be dealt with in the same manner regardless of their source (excluding anonymous complaints). It is the Council’s aim to treat all enforcement cases in an even handed and fair way for all parties involved. Whilst it is important to resolve a breach of planning control, satisfactory outcomes can be found through negotiation in many cases and on occasions can be time consuming. The Council will balance the opportunities for negotiation and delay against the seriousness of the breach and the damage caused to health, safety, the environment or amenity. When a planning enforcement complaint is received, a level of priority will be given in accordance with this Charter, ensuring that all complaints are investigated within an appropriate timescale proportionate to the breach of planning control that may or not have been committed. On occasions it should be noted that the investigations may exceed these timescales. Complaints will be acknowledged within three working days of receipt by letter or e-mail. This period of time allows the Council to register the complaint and pass the case to the relevant Officer. Following registration and acknowledgement of a possible breach of planning control, a Planning/Enforcement Officer or Planning Technician will visit the site. Priority for both site visits and dealing with the complaint will be established by consideration of the effect of the breach, the significance of the site and the alleged breach of planning control, taking into account the timescales laid out in Chapter 3. Complainants will be informed of the results of the initial investigation within 25 working days of the receipt of the complaint. The complainant will be advised whether there is a breach of planning control, the level of priority attached to the case, the findings of the initial site inspection and how the Council propose to proceed with the case wherever possible. It is not always possible to anticipate the length of time required for resolution by negotiation or on a decision on whether to take action or not. Progress can be delayed for a number of reasons, for example, where evidence must be collected and verified from a number of sources over a period of time, where negotiations take place, or where formal procedures have to be used. Applications to regularise the breach of planning control, or appeals to Scottish Ministers against a decision of the Council, will also affect the timescale for resolution of the case. The Officer dealing with the case will update the complainant when a decision is made or when a case is resolved. Outcomes Our aim in undertaking enforcement activity is to protect or enhance the natural environment, protect or enhance the historic environment, support a fair economy, and positively resolve the problems that arise from breaches of planning control. The Scottish Government publishes performance statistics on planning and enforcement, which can be viewed at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Planning/Publications Strategic Monitoring We do not always rely on members of the public to make an enforcement complaint or bring to our attention an alleged breach of planning control. We also undertake strategic monitoring of consents and these may trigger an enforcement file to be opened and investigated. Given the number of planning consents and geographic size of Argyll and Bute we cannot strategically monitor or review all consents. We give priority to major applications, controversial developments, and developments in sensitive locations. Page 312
Page 313
15 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 7: MONITORING OUR PERFORMANCE The Development Management Service undertake annual reporting via a National Planning Improvement Framework report, biannual statistical returns to the Scottish Government, and quarterly performance reports to the Council’s Senior Management and the Planning, Protective Services & Licencing (PPSL) Committee to check whether me are meeting our service standards and review these targets annually. Details of the key performance measures and how these are to be reported is set out in the Development Management Service Plan. CHAPTER 8: CORPORATE COUNCIL COMPLAINTS An enforcement complaint is not a complaint against the Council. Argyll and Bute Council hopes that the public will be satisfied with the planning enforcement service that is provided. In providing this service it is the Council’s sole aim to fully investigate enforcement complaints made to them with a view to resolving them in a consistent and even-handed manner. The Council is committed to improving the planning enforcement service and dealing promptly with any failures. At any point in this service should any dissatisfaction be felt about the way in which an enforcement enquiry is dealt with, then it is open to any person to make a formal complaint. The Council will consider complaints made about the way in which an enforcement enquiry is dealt with and how any investigation is carried out in terms of the service commitments. In the first instance you should discuss the matter with the Officer involved. If you are still dissatisfied then you should contact the appropriate Area Team Leader who will investigate the matter. If you remain dissatisfied with the way the Area Team Leader investigated your complaint, you can make your formal complaint via the Councils website https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/my-council/complaints It should be noted that the actual outcome of an enforcement investigation cannot be the subject of a complaint, but only the way that the decision was arrived at Page 313
Page 314
16 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … CHAPTER 9: ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL PLANNING ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS AND OTHER USEFUL INFORMATION Enforcement Contacts The planning enforcement function of the Council is a decentralised service based in the main Development and Infrastructure Services Area Offices. Enforcement enquiries should be submitted to the relevant Area Office in the first instance. Contact Details for Reporting Suspected Breaches of Planning Control: Customer Contact Centre: 01546 605518 • Planning Enforcement Officer Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islands 1A Manse Brae Lochgilphead PA31 8RD Tel no. 01546 605518 planning.maki@argyll-bute.gov.uk • Planning Enforcement Officer Oban, Lorn & The Isles Municipal Buildings Oban PA34 4AW Tel no. 01546 605518 planning.olandi@argyll-bute.gov.uk • Planning Enforcement Officer Bute, Cowal, Helensburgh & Lomond Helensburgh & Lomond Civic Centre 38 East Clyde Street Helensburgh G84 7PG Tel no. 01546 605518 planning.handl@argyll-bute.gov.uk planning.bandc@argyll-bute.gov.uk Page 314
Page 315
17 Bute • Helensburgh • Islay • Tarbet • Oban • Mull • Campbeltown • Iona • Dunoon • Tiree • Lochgilphead • Seil … Planning and Related Enforcement Legislation and Advice Planning Enforcement powers are set out in Part IV of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) and in Chapter IV of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997. The Planning Acts are available from HMSO, 71 Lothian Road and at www.scotland- legislation.hmso.gov.uk The High Hedges (Scotland) Bill was passed on 28th March 2013. Below is a link to the Council online ‘Question & Answers'. http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/high-hedges-scotland-act Scottish Government policy on planning enforcement is set out in Planning Circular 10/2009: Planning Enforcement available in electronic format on the Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/planning Other Council Services and external Agencies with separate enforcement and/or regulatory powers that may overlap or compliment planning enforcement powers include: ABC Building Standards: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-building/building-standards ABC Environmental Health: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/environment/environmental-health ABC Licencing: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/licences ABC Roads: https://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/roads-and-maintenance Advertising Standards Authority: https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html NatureScot: https://www.nature.scot/ Scottish Forestry: https://www.forestry.gov.scot/ Scottish Government Marine Directorate: https://marine.gov.scot/ Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA): https://www.sepa.org.uk/ Transport Scotland: https://www.transport.gov.scot/ Page 315
Page 316
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 317
Classification: OFFICIAL Argyll and Bute Council Development and Economic Growth PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE – 18/09/24 ________________________________________________________________________ UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING APPEAL DECISION 21/01583/PP – ERECTION OF CAFÉ WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING INCLUDING A VIEWPOINT, SEATING, INTERPRETIVE SIGN AND PLAY PARK LAND WEST OF INVERLUSRAGAN, CONNEL _________________________________________________________________________ A. INTRODUCTION This report summarises a recent decision by Scottish Ministers following the above application being appealed. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Members note the content of this report. C. BACKGROUND – 21/01583/PP This report refers to planning application reference 21/01583/PP for the erection of cafe with associated landscaping including a viewpoint, seating, interpretive sign and play park on an area of land to the west of Inverlusragan, Connel. The application was first presented to the Planning, Protective Services and Licensing (PPSL) Committee on 20 September 2023 and was subsequently discussed at a Pre- Determination Public Hearing held on 30 January 2024. Members resolved at the Pre- Determination Hearing to continue the item to allow for investigation of a competent motion with the intent to reconvene proceedings at the PPSL meeting on 21 February 2024. At the reconvened meeting of the PPSL on 21 February 2024 Members refused planning permission for a single reason relating to the site being within an Open Space Protection Area (OSPA) where the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of ‘National Planning Framework 4’ Policy 9, Policies LDP 8 and SG LDP REC/COM2 of the former adopted ‘Local Development Plan 2014’ and Policy 81 of the now adopted ‘Local Development Plan 2’. An appeal was subsequently submitted to the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA). SCOTTISH MINISTERS’ DECISION Scottish Ministers advised that the OSPA designation was an important consideration in the case and that any proposed development of the site would require a robust justification. Scottish Ministers did not consider that there were overriding reasons established by the Development Plan or material considerations which would support the development of the site for the proposed development. Page 317 Agenda Item 13
Page 318
Classification: OFFICIAL Scottish Ministers therefore concluded that the proposed development does not accord overall with the relevant provisions of the Development plan and that there are no material considerations which would justify granting planning permission and the appeal was dismissed. Full details of the appeal documents and decision can be viewed on the DPEA website under the reference PPA-130-2090: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details (scotland.gov.uk) D. IMPLICATIONS Policy: None Financial: None Personnel: None Equal Opportunities: None Author and Contact Officer: Fiona Scott Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 318
Page 319
Classification: OFFICIAL ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE UPDATE ON RECENT SCOTTISH MINISTERS SECTION 37 DECISION RELATED TO PROPOSED 275KV TRANSMISSION LINE FROM DALMALLY TO CREAG DHUBH _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 22/01298/S37 ECU REFERENCE: ECU00002199 DPEA REFERENCE: WIN-130-1 CASE DETAIL: CONSTRUCTION OF APPROX 13.3KM OF 275KV OVERHEAD LINE (OHL) FROM BETWEEN CREAG DHUBH SUBSTATION SITE AND SCOTTISH POWER ENERGY NETWORKS (SPEN) 275KV TRANSMISSION LINE THAT RUNS FROM DALMALLY TO INVERARNAN. SITE ADDRESS: LAND SOUTH OF DALMALLY AND EAST OF CLADDICH APPLICANT: SCOTTISH HYDRO ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION PLC STATUS: APPROVED BY SCOTTISH MINISERS ON 21ST AUGUST 2024 _______________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 In Scotland, any application to construct or operate an 275Kv overhead line requires the consent of Scottish Ministers under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. Any ministerial authorisation given includes a ‘deemed planning permission’ and in these circumstances there is then no requirement for a planning application to be made to the Council as Planning Authority. The Council’s role in this process is one of a consultee along with various other consultation bodies. It is open to the Council to either support or object to the proposal, and to recommend conditions it would wish to see imposed if authorisation is given by the Scottish Government. 1.2 Argyll & Bute Council objected to this application, and consequently, a Public Inquiry was required to determine the proposals. In this instance Members determined that the Planning Authority should object to the proposals due to the unacceptable impacts on the landscape and visual impact of the proposed Development on Argyll and Bute Council designated Area of Panoramic of Quality, effects on views from the Duncan Ban MacIntyre Monument; effects on the landscape setting of Kilchurn Castle; and effects arising from the loss of ancient woodland. 1.3 The reporter held a pre-examination meeting on 10 February 2023 to consider the arrangements and procedures for the public inquiry. Hearing sessions were held between 19 and 22 June 2023. The report of that inquiry (“PI Report”) was received by Scottish Ministers on 23 November 2023. The decision was issued on 24 August 2024. 1.4 This report summarises the decision made by Scottish Ministers to APPROVE Section 37 consent and deemed planning permission for the transmission line concerned. Page 319 Agenda Item 14
Page 320
Classification: OFFICIAL 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report. 3. REPORTERS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO SCOTTISH MINISTERS Reporter’s Conclusions (Extracts from Public Inquiry Report) 3.1 As a recently adopted policy document that relates directly to the subject matter of this section 37 application, I agree with the applicant that the Scottish Government’s Onshore Wind Policy Statement (OWPS) of December 2022 should be afforded substantial weight. 3.2 Taking all of the submissions into account, I regard the OWPS as strongly supportive in principle of onshore wind energy generation (and by implication this proposed development). I note that it concludes that “Deployment of onshore wind is mission- critical for meeting our climate targets.”. I find its introduction of a 20 GW target emphasises the importance that the Scottish Government places on this source of electricity, which also reflects the Climate Change Committee’s predictions about the future importance and distribution of onshore wind generation across the UK. 3.3 The proposed development would enable the connection of two generation schemes that already have section 37 consent (Blarghour and Tangy iv), removing the impediment to those two schemes contributing to the Scottish Government’s drive for more onshore wind energy. I am not convinced that the fact that the proposed development would have the capacity to accommodate further (as yet unapproved) generating proposals undermines the support it can draw from Scottish Government policy, as there is no evidence to indicate that Scottish Government’s strong in- principle support for onshore wind has been exhausted in this part of Argyll by those existing consents. 3.4 The Fourth National Planning Framework (NPF4) seeks, among other things, to address this issue, by providing explicit instruction on the weight to be given to the climate and nature crises, and detailed policy support for renewable energy development and associated infrastructure. One of the six outcomes to which NPF4 is legally obliged to contribute is: "meeting any targets relating to the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.” Another requires: “securing positive effects for biodiversity. 3.5 My conclusion is that significant weight needs to be given to both crises and that, in order to do that, it needs to be determined whether the proposal would be likely to assist or hinder efforts to address them. For reasons I have explained earlier in this report, I have no doubt that the proposal’s likely effect on the climate crisis would be positive. 3.6 With regard to the nature crisis, the loss of ancient woodland would have a negative effect. While the applicant proposes not only compensation for this effect but also positive enhancement measures that should ensure a net biodiversity benefit, these would take a significant period of time to become established. It is often argued that the greatest contributor to the nature crisis is rising global temperatures. However, I have insufficient evidence to give that argument any significant weight. Page 320
Page 321
Classification: OFFICIAL 3.7 My conclusion is that the proposed biodiversity enhancement measures would, in the long term, be likely to benefit the nature crisis. However, as it would have a temporary (but long term) adverse effect on biodiversity, this undermines some of the positive weight that the proposal would otherwise draw from its positive contribution to the climate crisis. 3.8 Transmission infrastructure’s National Development status, recognises the national significance of such development and its importance in delivering NPF4’s spatial strategy. NPF4 confirms that such designation means the principle of development does not need to be agreed in later consenting processes such as a section 37 application. 3.9 I concluded in the “other matters” section of this report that, due to separation distances and screening, the only historic asset that could have its setting materially affected by the proposal is the Duncan Ban Monument, a category B listed building. Having considered the likely effect on its setting, I concluded that this would not be significantly affected. My conclusion in respect of policy 7 is that the proposal would comply with its requirements. 3.10 My conclusion is that significant effects on the character of this landscape type would be limited to the immediate vicinity of the proposal, where the greater scale of the proposed towers when compared with mature trees and other existing landscape features, and their engineered appearance, could be fully appreciated. Beyond a distance of around 800 metres (and less in some locations due to screening) I predict that, existing human influences within the landscape and its large scale would enable the development to be accommodated without significant change to its character. 3.11 The North Argyll Area of Panoramic Quality (the APQ) is a local landscape designation in the LDP which covers two extensive land areas separated by Loch Etive. The LDP confirms that the aim of APQ designation is to protect locally important landscapes within Argyll and Bute from damaging development that would diminish their very high scenic value. According to the LDP, these areas are important not only for their physical landforms and scenic value, but also for the environmental assets that they represent, which could potentially be destroyed or damaged by even a relatively small, insensitive development. 3.12 In locations very close to the proposed OHL, anyone walking or mountain / gravel biking would certainly have their experience impaired by the development’s adverse visual effect. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the line of the proposal runs close to any routes of particular importance for such activities. Indeed, I found it difficult to access the immediate vicinity of much of the proposed OHL by mountain bike due to the absence of suitable tracks. 3.13 I appreciate that there is a risk that adding additional large-scale infrastructure to a locality where that is already present, could breach a tipping point beyond which there was harm to the qualities that are particularly valued by recreational users. However, the evidence does not persuade me that the effect of this proposal would come close to such a tipping point. On the contrary, I am satisfied that the overall recreational attractiveness of this location would be minimally affected by what is now proposed. ….Consequently, I predict no significant effect on this special quality. 3.14 In accordance with Schedule 9 of the 1989 Act, in preparing my advice and recommendations to Ministers (and as related in this report) I have had regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and Page 321
Page 322
Classification: OFFICIAL objects of architectural, historic or archaeological interest. I have also had regard to the requirement to avoid, as far as possible, to causing injuries to fisheries or to the stock of fish in any waters. 3.15 I have also considered whether the applicant has satisfied the further requirement of Schedule 9 to do what it reasonably can to mitigate any effect on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects. 481. For the reasons I have set out in this report, I am satisfied that the applicant has satisfied these Schedule 9 requirements. I am also satisfied that what is proposed is consistent with the applicant’s duty under section 9 of the Act to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission. Reporters Recommendation to the Scottish Ministers 3.16 The Reporter recommended that consent should be granted under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and planning permission should be deemed to be granted under section 57 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended), subject to the conditions listed in Appendix 1. 4.0 The Scottish Ministers’ Conclusions (extracts) Reasoned Conclusions on the Impacts of the Proposals 4.1 Having considered the Application, the EIA report, responses from consultees, and Scottish Government policies, Ministers consider that the main determining issues are: • the environmental impacts of the proposed Development including landscape and visual effects; • the consideration of alternatives; • the extent to which the proposed Development accords with and is supported by Scottish Government policies; and • the contribution the proposed Development will make to realising the wider benefits of renewable electricity generation connection to the national grid. 4.2 The Scottish Ministers are satisfied and content with the information contained within Chapter 8 of the EIAR for the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (“LVIA”) and the responses from both the Planning Authority and NatureScot. There are two locations (Visual Point 11 – Duncan Ban monument and Visual Point 19 – Cladich Steading) where a significantly adverse visual impact would be experienced. The Scottish Ministers accept that harm would be caused to the visual amenity of those visiting the Duncan Ban monument, and at Cladich Steading, however given the scale of the proposal, the Scottish Ministers consider the incidence of significant landscape and visual effects will be low and localised. 4.3 Additionally, the Scottish Ministers believe the effects on the character of the Craggy Uplands – Argyll Landscape Character Type would only be significant within close proximity of the site and would therefore also be localised. Scottish Ministers are content that consideration has been given to the most sensitive landscape and visual receptors during the routing and design stage, as such any impacts have been minimised. 4.4 The Scottish Ministers agree with the findings and conclusions of the reporters that the proposed Development would have significant adverse effects in landscape and visual terms. The Scottish Ministers note the reporters’ conclusion at paragraphs 182- 184 Page 322
Page 323
Classification: OFFICIAL that although there would be significant landscape effects, these would be predominantly low and localised. 4.5 The Scottish Ministers agree with the reporter’s findings in paragraphs 319 to 324 of the Report that effects on cultural heritage and archaeology would be, at worst, moderate and not significant. 4.6 With regard to ancient woodland, the Development would result in approximately 7.59 hectares of ancient woodland being lost, of which 5.68 hectares is native broadleaves, and the remaining 1.91 hectares comprising of mixed scrubland, plantation woodland, and open ground. Compensatory planting shall be carried out by the Company ensuring no net loss of woodland as a result of the proposed Development in line with the Scottish Government Policy on Control of Woodland Removal, which has been included as a condition within this consent. It is acknowledged that a long-term residual adverse effect would remain until such time as the proposed replacement broadleaf woodland areas were fully established and functional (which could be at least 80 years) 4.7 The reporter also considered (paragraphs 234-275) five alternative routes put forward by the third-party objector group No More Pylons, (NMP) who suggested that further alternatives merited consideration. 4.8 The reporter noted that the route for the Development was determined by the Company following a period of extensive stakeholder consultation consideration of the concerns raised by stakeholders. The Company also gave appropriate consideration to undergrounding by undertaking a feasibility study and commissioning a Cable Route Report. 4.9 Following consideration of NMP’s alternatives, the reporter concluded that these alternatives were highly constrained by engineering, health and safety, environmental, and economic factors. The Company is obliged to strike the correct balance between economic, technical and environmental considerations, and the reporter concluded in this context that their consideration of alternatives was reasonable, thorough and in accordance with legal obligations. 4.10 The proposed Development will provide the resilience necessary to maintain secure and reliable supplies of energy to homes and businesses as our energy transition takes place. It will also support the connection of a significant amount of renewable energy generation to the national electricity system, making an important contribution to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. Scottish Ministers conclude that the proposed Development is supported by the Energy Strategy. The Draft Scottish Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan 2023 signals that strong support from the Scottish Government for upgraded transmission infrastructure remains. 4.11 The Scottish Ministers consider the Development would not accord with policy 6(b)(i) of NPF4 due to the proposed loss of ancient woodland, and (of less significance), policy 14 due to it causing some localised amenity harm and failing to improve the quality of the area. However, it would satisfy the requirements of all other development plan policies and would benefit from being a national development in NPF4 and from the support that is given within NPF4 to developments that contribute to renewable energy generation and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Therefore, the Scottish Ministers conclude that the Development is, overall, in accordance with and supported by NPF4. 4.12 The Scottish Ministers conclude that there will be some significant adverse environmental effects, including the localised significant adverse landscape and visual Page 323
Page 324
Classification: OFFICIAL effects and temporary but long-term adverse effects arising from the loss of ancient woodland. There are no other likely significant residual environmental effects. Mitigation measures are proposed, and Scottish Ministers have secured these by conditions attached to this consent. Scottish Ministers conclusion is that the benefits of the proposal outweigh the adverse effects it would have. The Scottish Ministers are satisfied having regard to current knowledge and methods of assessment that this reasoned conclusion is up to date. 4.13 Scotland’s energy policies and planning policies are all material considerations when weighing up the proposed Development. NPF4 make it clear that low carbon energy deployment, maintaining security of electricity supply, and electricity system resilience remain a priority of the Scottish Government. These are matters which should be afforded significant weight in favour of the proposed Development. The Scottish Ministers conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed Development is supported by Scottish Government policies The Scottish Ministers Determination 4.14 Subject to the conditions set out in Annex 2 - Part 1, the Scottish Ministers grant consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 to install and keep installed above ground the overhead electric line (as described in Annex 1). 4.15 Subject to the conditions set out in Annex 2 - Part 2, the Scottish Ministers direct that planning permission be deemed to be granted under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of the Development described in Annex 1. 92. The consent may, at any time after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the consent, be varied or revoked by the Scottish Ministers under section 37 (3)(b) of the Act 4.16 The Reporters Inquiry Report and Scottish Ministers decision and all other submissions can be viewed on the DPEA (Directorate of Planning Environmental Appeals) website at the following link: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details (scotland.gov.uk) 5.0 IMPLICATIONS Policy: None Financial: None. Personnel: None Equal Opportunities: None Author: David Moore Date: 5th September 2024 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth Page 324
Page 325
Document is Restricted Page 325 Agenda Item 15NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 326
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 327
Document is Restricted Page 337 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 328
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 329
Document is Restricted Page 355 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 330
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 331
Document is Restricted Page 357 Agenda Item 16NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Page 332
This page is intentionally left blank