DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE 16th November 2016 ______

MASTERPLAN REPORT 16/02356/MPLAN

CASTLE STRATEGIC MASTERPLAN AREA MAST 1/ 2 CASTLE TOWARD POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA PDA 2/42 ______

1. INTRODUCTION

The Castle Toward estate situated between Toward and Ardyne in south has recently been disposed of by the Council to private purchasers and their development aspirations have been set out in a masterplan submission which responds to Strategic Masterplan Area MAST 1/2 and Potential Development Area PDA 2/42 of the Local Development Plan (2015), which express the Council’s aspirations for the future development of the estate, and which seeks to ensure that development proposals are advanced in a co-ordinated manner.

The PDA is bounded by the C10 Glenstriven Road to the west and south, by Ardyne Farm and grazing fields to the north, and by grazing fields and woodland belonging to Toward Farm to the east. The PDA includes the main Castle Toward mansion house building and associated buildings in the central portion, the ruined Toward Castle in the south-eastern portion, former gate lodge and other residential dwellings in the south- western corner, and former greenhouses and associated estate buildings in the northern portion. The remainder of the PDA comprises areas of established mixed woodland, open space areas, moor and grazing fields.

Potential Development Area PDA 2/42: ‘Toward – Castle Toward’ advocates low density development of mixed uses including tourism, education, leisure, housing and business related developments.

The PDA has also been identified as a Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA) MAST 1/2 suitable for ‘mixed use development’ comprising tourism, business, leisure, housing and educational uses which requires a Masterplan approach when planning permission is not being sought for the full PDA area.

The majority of the PDA and SMA site (excluding the eastern part surrounding Toward Castle), also lies within a designated Area of Panoramic Quality. The entire PDA and SMA site lies within the Garden and Designed Landscape of Castle Toward.

Members will find elsewhere on the agenda a separate detailed application for planning permission (ref.16/00996/PP) to change the use of Castle Toward mansion house from a Class 8 (residential institution) to Class 9 (dwellinghouse), including ancillary housekeeper’s accommodation and Sui Generis use as a commercial/leisure events venue. This application is also accompanied by a Listed Building Consent application (ref. 16/01405/LIB) for external and internal alterations to the mansion house only.

2. RECOMMENDATION

Whilst details of residential and commercial proposals within the PDA and SMA boundaries are intended to provide an indicative vision only of future development at this stage of the process, it is nevertheless considered that sufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate an overall strategy for future development which will ensure that a phased development can be achieved without compromising the long term aims of the PDA and SMA. It is therefore recommended that the committee: 1) Endorses the masterplan as submitted;

2) Adopts it as a material consideration in the determination of applications currently under consideration and future development proposals;

3) Agrees that the masterplan should be updated as necessary in the event that developments are approved at the site in conformity with the masterplan which prove to have implications for the delivery of development within the remainder of the site;

subject to prior consideration by means of a discretionary local hearing in view of the number of representations received raising material issues.

3. BACKGROUND

PDA 2/42 and MAST 1/2 are located at the southern tip of the Ardyne Point / Toward Point peninsula. Both Potential Development Area (PDA) and Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA) boundaries are identical and are bounded by the C10 Glenstriven Road with fields and former oil rig fabrication yard at Ardyne Point to the west, sloping farmland and woodland to the north, farmland and woodland to the east and the C10 Glenstriven Road, Toward Quay and to the south.

The land within the PDA 2/42 (and MAST 1/2) boundary comprises Castle Toward, a Category B Listed Building, which was last in use as an educational outdoor centre and associated estate buildings, in addition to some residential dwellinghouses in the south-west portion adjacent to a listed Gate House building. The ruined Toward Castle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument, is situated in the south-eastern portion of the PDA close to a former vehicular access from the C10 road. The current access to Castle Toward is from the C10 to the west, adjacent to the Toward Memorial Hall and car parking area at Toward Bay. The remainder of the PDA comprises grazing fields, areas of established mature mixed woodland and open space areas associated with the Garden and Designed Landscape of Castle Toward. To the north, west and east of the PDA, the landscape is characterised by open grassland and cultivated farmland, areas of woodland and scattered rural residential dwellings.

Castle Toward estate description

The designed landscape at Castle Toward extends northwards up Toward Hill to include the Chinese Lakes (reservoirs to supply the estate which were made into an attractive landscape feature) and Ardyne Farm to the north-west. The C10 Glenstriven Road forms the southern and western boundaries, and to the east, the boundary takes in old estate parkland and is bounded by a commercial coniferous plantation on what was probably former policy woodland. A belt of old policy woodland is included in the designed landscape, which stretches east of the old ruins of Toward Castle. The principal features of the designed landscape, except for the Chinese lakes are contained within the current estate boundary comprising approximately 150ha (370 acres).

History

Castle Toward is the most significant and imposing feature within the estate, by virtue of its elevated and commanding location affording views out over the sea, and its architectural flamboyance. It is a 19th century country house (mansion by Hamilton 1821 with 20th century enlargement and now Grade B listed) which replaced a late medieval castle, which was home of the Clan Lamont. It was owned and extended by Major Andrew Coats, of the Coats family of Paisley, and Italian plasterwork was installed in the public rooms in 1920. The entire building was restored and enlarged over the course of the 1920s by the architect Francis William Deas, who also laid out most of the current landscaping. In the Second World War it served as HMS Brontosaurus, and after the war it was sold to Corporation and used as an outdoor education facility until closure in 2009. It was occupied latterly by Actual Reality Learning and Leadership Co as an Education Centre for music and art and an Outward Bound centre, prior to being disposed of by Argyll and Bute Council in 2016.

The mansion stands in around 150ha of grounds which incorporate some areas of ancient woodland and areas of garden design by Edward La Trobe Bateman carried out in the 1880’s. The grounds incorporate the ruins of the original Toward Castle, Chinese ponds, wooded areas, access to the shore, and views over the Firth of Clyde. Within the grounds, there are various curtilage structures (West Lodge, East and North Walled Gardens, gardener’s workshop, glasshouses and other garden structures) which are covered by the grade B listing of the mansion house.

The original Toward Castle, also known as Castle Lamont, (Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade B listed) dates from the 15th century, and was owned by the Clan Lamont until 1809. The castle was extended in the 17th century, but was abandoned after an attack by the Clan Campbell in 1646. The ruins lie around 500 metres south-east of the Castle Toward mansion house.

Castle Toward represents an important example of a 19th century designed landscape set at a focal point on the Firth of Clyde and funded by mercantile success. It is of significance due to its castellated mansion, its designed landscape incorporating pre-park woodland, and the fact that it incorporates earlier castle ruins. This is recognised in the various designations protecting its historic environment. As an estate, it has suffered latterly from wartime requisitioning, the demolition of some curtilage structures and the abandonment of others, the loss of important trees, garden features and horticultural interest, the introduction of inappropriate conifer plantation, and the general lack of maintenance inherent in public ownership. However, the parkland/woodland setting of the site and the built features which remain still afford the potential for there to be sensitive restoration of the estate underpinned by enabling development, although care is required to ensure that the nature and scale of such development does not undermine the very qualities which give rise to the landscape qualities and the and historic importance of this site.

4. CONSULTATIONS

Council’s Flood Risk Engineer (response dated 2nd September 2016): No objections subject to conditions and advisory notes. Comments regarding topographic survey, finished floor levels and surface water drainage.

Council’s Biodiversity Officer (response dated 6th September 2016): Comments regarding invasive non-native species and request for eradication and site restoration programme. Masterplan lacks an Ecological Report. Request for Arboriculture Survey.

Council’s Access Officer (responses dated 12th September and 2nd November 2016) Original request for access path information. Updated response comments that the proposed Masterplan will not restrict the use of the Core Path and that the Council has not recognised either of the claimed Public Rights of Way. Comments regarding future mitigation of potential loss of access or rights of way. Advisory comments.

Council’s Public Protection Service (response dated 23rd September 2016): Comments regarding foul drainage, water supply, contaminated land, construction activities and operating hours, noise, asbestos management and food registration.

Council’s Roads Engineers (response dated 7th October 2016): No objections subject to conditions regarding Traffic Impact Assessment, reduced speed limit on C10, visibility splays, access design and car parking for various uses and requirements for Construction Consent, Road Bond and Road Opening Permit.

Historic Environment (response dated 28th September 2016): No objection in principle. Proposals will ensure the repair and long term management of this nationally important heritage asset. Comments in Annex regarding assessment of impact. No objections. Proposals do not raise issues of national significance in respect of the nearby Castle Toward Designed Landscape.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (response dated 6th October 2016): Comments regarding Toward Castle, a scheduled monument, listed buildings and designed landscape. Recommend suspensive condition for a requirement to carry out archaeological investigations.

Scottish Natural Heritage - (response dated 5th September 2016): No comments to make as below consultation threshold.

Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (response dated 28th September 2016): SEPA comment that insufficient information available to offer detailed comments on. Further information required in respect of Site Drainage Report and Flood Risk Assessment (or the provision of equivalent information). Advisory comments on regulatory requirements.

Scottish Rights of Way Society (response dated 12th October 2016): Objection on the basis that right of way SA181 and other popular recreational routes within the application site boundary may become lost to the general public due to access restrictions.

Sportscotland (response dated 21st October 2016): Comments regarding informal playing field area south of the mansion house.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (expiry date 21st September 2016): No response.

Scottish Water (expiry date 21st September 2016): No response.

South Cowal Community Council (e-mail dated 25th September 2016): Objections based on Right of Way, proposed housing in an area prone to flooding, poor access for proposed housing, important and rare species of wildlife within the estate, increase in road traffic, details of proposed deer farm.

Isle of Bute Community Council (expiry date 21st September 2016): No response.

5. PUBLICITY

The Masterplan has been advertised in the Observer - publication date 9th September 2016, expiry date 7th October 2016.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

The masterplan has attracted 20 objections, 25 expressions of support, and 1 representation offering comment as follows. Names and addresses are listed in Appendix A and matters raised are summarised below:

Objections a) Public Access

 Ramblers Scotland object on the basis that no access plan was submitted as part of the application package. A clear access plan would allay concerns over potential loss of the claimed right of way and other informal access taken in the grounds which are well-used by the local community.

Comment: A Supplementary Access Plan (in conjunction with plan 1544_L (MP) 005 dated September 2016 has been submitted in support of the masterplan proposals (refer below). The applicant fully intends to maintain access via the core path in the western part of the estate. The Core Path C208(c ) is confirmed by the Council as the only recognised public right of way. The applicants have commented that by summer 2017 they intend to provide an additional footpath from the Chinese Lakes down the eastern side of the estate. This may require formal planning permission to extend any existing tracks. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed a private area immediately surrounding the mansion house. This area is identified on plan 1544 L (MP)003. This area encompasses the formal lawn areas to the front of the house which the applicants propose to develop into a formal garden. There will be public access for a small charge to these gardens on certain days depending on events. This aspect of the works will require formal planning permission where matters such as impact on the Garden and Designed Landscape and any landscaping and boundary treatments will be taken into consideration.

 Masterplan proposals will prevent public access. There is a recognised right of way at the Estate which has not been recognised in the plan.

 The plan has a massive impact on public access and effectively blocks the public usage that has been taking place over decades. The plan ignores the Public Right of Way recorded on the Catalogue of Rights of Way (CROW).

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan comments that reference should be made to the existing Master Plan submission which clearly identifies the area of the estate that would become accessible with the granting of a change of use consent under the Land Reform Scotland Act - Drawing 1544_L (MP) 003 refers. The applicants confirm that there is no intention to deliver a formal “path network”. There will be a programme of improvements undertaken throughout the estate and this will include clearing blocked woodland walks etc. The main focus in the first instance will be the creation of an access on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen which will link to the existing path network on adjoining land leading to the Chinese Lakes. The intention is to complete this as part of the first phase of works, and this will have a requirement for major machinery to access the area (with some of the fallen trees exceeding twenty five tonnes in weight). This machinery will be operating on site as part of the construction improvements for phase 1, so there is likely to be a short period of time when this machinery will be working in both locations at the same time. During this time there will be no access in the vicinity of the mansion house and in the vicinity of the Himalayan Glen, simply from a health and safety perspective. The applicants are currently tendering for the construction works, and once the successful contractor is appointed they will have a clearer idea of the programming of the works. Therefore, the proposed improved path to the east of the Himalayan Glen will link with the existing core path / right of way and will provide access round the estate back to the public road to the south.

 Little or no off-road parking at the eastern side of the estate to access Toward Castle.

Comment: The applicants confirm that there is no intention to provide car parking for the general public within the estate grounds. They comment that there will of course be adequate car parking provided within the estate for those on business within the estate, such as for events and weddings, and for the development areas such as the residential dwellings, holiday lodges, market garden, the retail café area redevelopment of the coach house etc. The applicants comment that there is public car parking immediately adjacent to the Memorial Hall at the Western entrance and to the public car park provided by the Forestry Commission just to the north of the estate and consider that these offer adequate car parking for the public using the Core Path or for those taking access to the estate under the Land Reform Scotland Act.

 Proposed gates, fencing and access charges all serve to restrict access.

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan comments that the demarcation line has been identified by reference to historical records and to existing structures and fencing on the ground. Previously this fence has been predominantly a traditional iron estate fence, and in other locations this comprises a now dilapidated deer fence. Whilst it is the intention to restore/replace elements of the iron fence, at other locations the applicants require to extend the deer fencing. However, due to the current overgrown nature of the grounds it is currently extremely difficult to identify the full extent of each type of existing fencing. As a general principle however the existing fence running north-south on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen will be restored as a deer fence, as will the section to the south which runs east–west and which leads up the western driveway. To the north the existing livestock fences around the paddocks will be repaired. Gates are proposed at the junctions with the fence lines and the new restored eastern driveway and with the existing western driveway. Where the fence on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen reaches the top boundary of the estate, an access will be afforded across the burn by way of pedestrian bridge (which the applicants understand to still exist but is currently inaccessible) within the estate so as to afford connectivity to the current central path leading to the Lakes.

 No details on charging for public access.

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan 1544_L (MP) 003 refers as the area is wholly contained within the Private boundary. The applicants comment that the principle is very similar to that currently being adopted at Castle Gordon in Moray where the owners are currently undertaking a full renovation of the walled gardens, and a modest charge is made for access by visitors. The area potentially affected shall take in the walled gardens, the parterre gardens and the Japanese fountain gardens as well as the Himalayan Glen, (famous for its plant specimens) and the bluebell woods at the mouth of the bridge. These areas formed the core of the designated Designed Landscape. The plan is that with initial investment the core of these areas can be developed and the financial contribution which will come from visitors to the formal gardens shall support various upkeep requirements, for example additional staff wages, so as to permit the grounds to be opened to the public on Sundays/Public Holidays etc. on a regular basis.

 There would no longer be any convenient route between the ruined castle and the Chinese Lakes. The path from the ruin in drawing 1544)_L(MP)001 and marked as “public access promoted” is currently impassable and peters out eventually after leaving the estate boundary on the wrong side of the burn from the well-used Right of Way that leads to the Lakes.

Comment: The applicants comment that during the works, access to the Chinese Lakes will always remain available via the Core Path through the estate. None of the proposals will impact on the existing Core Path.

To facilitate access to the Chinese Lakes area, works will be undertaken at an early stage to clear the large windblown trees etc. that have fallen in the area of the Himalayan Glen, so that general access can be gained to the current Forestry Commission paths leading from the estate to the Chinese Lakes area. The applicants propose that an access is available up the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen, and understand that pedestrian footbridges existed towards the top of this glen within the current estate boundary, which could be used to gain access to the central path leading to the Lakes. The applicants cannot currently gain access to this area due to extensive overgrowth and fallen trees that are of a substantial nature, to ascertain the condition of the bridge(s) but propose to assess their condition at an early stage and will if necessary provide a new pedestrian bridge close to the northern boundary of the estate for improved connectivity.

The applicants comment that generally the paths that exist at present are of a woodland nature, it is not our intention to substitute these with tarmacadam or the like, rather that the paths will give informal access to various parts of the estate. Some of the paths pass through damp areas and a programme of land drainage is envisaged in future years. Funding in the first instance will however be directed at restoration of the listed buildings so work on the paths will be limited to clearance work associated with fallen timber and overgrown bushes/scrub etc. b) Masterplan

 The proposed masterplan differs greatly from what was originally said in council press releases. The communities were promised a spa hotel with a restaurant open to non- residents with around 150 full time jobs created. What is now proposed is little more than private accommodation with some ancillary luxury function capability.

Comment: Refer to report below. However, past expectations or understandings do not amount to a material planning consideration. c) Proposed Housing

 The plan includes new housing. No need for further housing within the area. Housing not classed as affordable. Housing remote from amenities.

Comment: There is housing proposed. However, it is understood that some of this will be staff accommodation. The Masterplan is indicative therefore the final details of the housing will need to be assessed through the submission of further planning applications. Further comment is provided below. d) Traffic

 Increased traffic as a result of the development and new housing;

 Stretch of road between Dunoon and Castle Toward has many dangerous spots and requires improvement to accommodate the proposed development;

 Road between Toward Memorial Hall and East Gate is dangerous;

 No car parking proposed at east gate.

Comment: The Council’s roads engineers do not object in terms of road safety or parking capacity but offer advice on access, parking and turning requirements for future development. Future planning applications will require to have a transport management plan but a Masterplan is not the appropriate submission to deal with this requirement. e) Business

 Adverse impacts on existing local businesses. Stated aim of the Masterplan is to compete directly with nearby Knockdow Estate;

 Development of holiday lodges would put the estate in competition with Hunters Quay Holiday Village.

Comment: The proposals are considered to be consistent with the potential land uses for the PDA and SMA. Matters of business competition are not a material planning consideration.

f) Habitats and Species

 The estate is home to red squirrels, pine martens, bats and other important species.

Comment: Noted and acknowledged that any development works must be fully assessed for impacts on habitats and species. Works that do not require planning permission such as woodland clearance, path improvements etc. will still require authorisation from SNH should there be the prospect of disturbing protected species. Refer to report below. g) Other Matters

 The helicopter landing pad is not appropriate in this setting.

Comment: This aspect would require full consideration in any detailed application for planning permission.

 Council appear keen to offload Castle Toward to a developer solely to generate money and in doing so are completely at odds with the opinions and aspirations of the local community;

 Sad that the Council rejected the community buy-out of Castle Toward;

 The Council should refer all planning matters at Castle Toward to Scottish Minsters as it has a vested interest in the sale.

Comment: These are not considered to be relevant planning considerations in an assessment of this masterplan proposal. It should be noted that as of 21st October 2016 the Council are no longer the owners of the estate as ownership has passed to the applicants since the masterplan was submitted.

 Proposed deer farm – no details on management or fencing.

Comment: The Supplementary Access Plan comments that livestock has been retained on the estate for in excess of twenty years during the ownership of Argyll and Bute Council, and evidence records that much livestock was previously kept on the estate prior to the council’s ownership. Attention is drawn to the Ha-ha which was constructed on the front lawns to allow livestock to freely roam the estate in the past. Although now dilapidated, the masterplan proposals include the restoration of the Ha‐ha. This was historically used to keep livestock from the more formal lawn / garden area closer to the house.

More recently whilst livestock has been retained during the Council’s ownership, members of the public are required to act responsibly under the terms of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and this will continue to be the case. It is intended that there will be a combination of horses and deer kept within the estate, with horse grazing areas retained in the current paddock areas and deer formally introduced to the eastern parkland adjacent to the eastern driveway.

Expression of Support

The reasons for expressing support are summarised below:

 Most positive and productive uses which will still allow public access to the estate;

 Happy to see a new pathway to the Chinese Lakes;

 The castle is falling further and further into disrepair as well as costing huge amounts of money to the taxpayer;

 Preferred bidders have been very clear that Castle Toward will have adequate access and very open with their plans for the estate at the meeting held in Innellan Village Hall;

 A fantastic project that will hugely benefit the surrounding community both by creating jobs and bringing tourists in;  Access plan allows the public to enjoy the estate;

 New gardens could attract tourists and support other businesses;

 The proposed deer farm is a positive initiative which will produce a product from the estate itself;

 The plan provides employment and allows continuous use of the estate;

 The plan will provide additional new housing in the area;

 Great potential for the estate to flourish similar to the Portavadie example;

 The Masterplan would enhance the whole area both aesthetically and economically.

Representation

One letter of representation has been received from Gary Brown, Manager Student Tours Scotland (emails dated 30th September and 3rd October 2016). An initial objection was based on no suitable existing access from the main road to the ruined castle but he has withdrawn this objection to suggest improved pedestrian links to the castle along with enhanced visitor and historical information on the castle would be beneficial.

4. ASSESSMENT

a) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the masterplan

Argyll and Bute Council Local Development Plan (26th March 2015)

LDP STRAT 1 Sustainable Development; LDP DM1 Development within the Development Management Zones (the application site is located within PDA 2/42 and MAST 1/2); LDP 3 Supporting the Protection, Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment; LDP 4 Supporting the Sustainable Development of our Coastal Zone; LDP 5 Supporting the Sustainable Growth of our Economy; LDP 8 Supporting the Strength of Our Communities; LDP 9 Development Setting, Layout and Design; LDP 10 Maximising our Resources and Reducing Our Consumption; LDP 11 Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure.

Argyll and Bute Supplementary Guidance (March 2016)

SG LDP ENV 1 Development Impact on Habitats, Species and our Biodiversity (i.e. biological diversity); SG LDP ENV 6 Development Impact on Trees / Woodland; SG LDP ENV13 Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs); SG LDP ENV14 Landscape; SG LDP ENV15 Development Impact on Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes; SG LDP ENV 16(a) Development Impact on Listed Buildings; SG LDP ENV 19 Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments; SG LDP ENV 20 Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance; SG LDP BUS2 Business and Industry Proposals in the Countryside Development Management Zones; SG LDP RET4 Retail Development within Countryside Development Management Zones; SG LDP TOUR1 Tourist Facilities and Accommodation; SG LDP HOU1 General Housing Development including Affordable Housing Provision; SG LDP SERV 1 Private Sewage Treatment Plants and Wastewater (i.e. drainage) Systems; SG LDP SERV 3 Drainage Impact Assessment (DIA); SG LDP SERV 6 Private Water Supplies and Water Conservation; SG LDP SERV 7 Flooding and Land Erosion – The Risk Framework for Development; SG LDP TRAN1 Access to the Outdoors; SG LDP TRAN2 Development and Public Transport Accessibility; SG LDP TRAN3 Special Needs Access Provision; SG LDP TRAN 4 New and Existing, Public Roads and Private Access Regimes; SG LDP TRAN 6 Vehicle Parking Provision SG2 Sustainable Siting and Design Principles; b) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.

National Planning Framework 3 (NPF 3) (June 2014); Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) (June 2014); Scottish Historic Environment Policy 2014; Applicant’s Supporting Information; Planning history; Views of statutory and other consultees; Legitimate public concern expressed on ‘material’ planning issues. c) Assessment against the Development Plan

The masterplan site and its wider surroundings fall within an area designated as Countryside Zone and rural opportunity area. Such a designation would normally be restrictive in terms of the scale of development which would be accepted, however, given its condition as a vacant major Category Grade B Listed building and large unmanaged estate grounds within a Garden and Designed Landscape, the site has been identified in the Local Development Plan (LDP) as a Potential Development Area (PDA) and Strategic Masterplan Area (SMA). The latter designation identifies large scale areas which are of strategic economic importance to Argyll and Bute.

PDA 2/42 and SMA MAST 1/2 both have the same boundary and are identified as providing opportunities for ‘mixed use’ development including tourism, business, leisure, housing and educational related development.

Where PDAs and SMAs have been designated in the countryside, the normally applicable constraints associated with the underlying ‘Development Control Zones’ are removed. PDA 2/42 therefore establishes a general presumption in favour of mixed use development in terms of the adopted Argyll and Bute LDP, subject to a comprehensive master planning approach being adopted to satisfy the requirements of LDP MAST 1/2. d) Proposed Masterplan Zoning

A ‘Restoration and Development Masterplan for Castle Toward Estate’ dated 22nd August 2016 has been submitted which defines the key built and environmental considerations taken into account during the Masterplanning process, including impact on other local businesses, phasing, new uses for old buildings, wider designed landscape, landscape features, visual amenity, cultural heritage, introduction of livestock, public access and public events, holiday accommodation and small-scale residential development.

Vision

The applicants’ vision for the Castle Toward Estate is “to create an economic and cultural asset for the Cowal peninsula that provides local employment opportunities by addressing the neglect of the 20th century and restoring the Estate’s buildings, structures and designed landscape to their former glory and creating new financially sustainable beneficial long-term uses for each”.

The development vision includes:

 The restoration of Castle Toward and other significant buildings around the estate and their conversion to beneficial new long-term uses;

 The restoration of the designed landscape including the re-opening of the east drive and the enhancement of the setting of Toward Castle;

 Development of commercial and revenue generating opportunities around the estate;

 Promotion of managed public access.

Phasing

The applicants have provided an indicative five year plan for the development of the estate. The delivery of the Masterplan will be controlled through the submission of various applications for planning permission. The indicative delivery timetable of the proposals is outlined below. Please note that this is subject to change and is dependent on market forces.

Should the current applications be permitted, the applicants intend to undertake works to the house and grounds immediately as per the current associated applications for planning permission and listed building consent. This work is anticipated to allow for the mansion house to be available for events during 2017. Further works on the house will continue through to 2018 including the installation of the basement spa facilities. These works are all covered by the current applications for planning permission and listed building consent.

The applicants intend to create a formal designed garden area to the front of Castle Toward. This will generally be a private garden but there will be days when it will be open to members of the public for a small fee. This is common to large estate houses across Scotland. This will involve the reinstatement of the ha-ha and the planting of formal areas. An application for this is expected early in 2017.

This initial phase will include the path connections adjacent to the Himalayan Glen so that public access can benefit at an early stage and most of these areas will be complete by summer 2017. The applicant has advised that they have issued tender requirements to contractors for this work. The woodland improvements will be an ongoing element throughout the lifespan of the estate. Although these elements do not require the benefit of planning permission the applicant has demonstrated a willingness to provide access for the public. The extent of access available to the public is denoted on plan 1544_L(MP)003. Should the works not be undertaken then the planning authority can seek to attach planning conditions to subsequent applications to ensure its installation, specifically when the applicant submits an application for the re-opening of the eastern driveway which is expected early 2017.

A further planning application will be required for the restoration of the eastern driveway. It is anticipated that this will be submitted early in 2017 especially considering the applicant’s desire to open the house for public events in the summer 2017. Whilst Castle Toward and the driveway are being restored, much needed maintenance and land management of the grounds will be carried out including clearing gullies and dead trees as well as re-establishing the old Ha-ha, Chinese Fountain Garden, northern garden as well as the path garden on the eastern side. These are also the areas most needed for events which it is hoped will take place in and around Castle Toward and grounds. The proposed fishing lake is scheduled for completion for late 2017/early 2018. With this in mind a planning application will need to be submitted in the first half of 2017 to allow sufficient time for the determination of a submission prior to the commencement of works.

The re-opening of the east drive is scheduled for 2017 and this will allow for improved public access to Toward Castle scheduled ancient monument. Clan Lamont have been offered the lease of Toward Castle to allow them to have substantially larger and more frequent events at their family seat which in turn should encourage more tourism within the area. New directional signage as well as educational and interpretation boards will also be installed making the ancient castle more accessible and visible to visitors. It is understood that this element of the proposals will be up to Clan Lamont to progress so the applicant has no control over the likely submission of any necessary planning applications.

Detailed applications are intended to be submitted in early 2017 for the reinstatement of the east drive lodges and the first of the dwelling houses, together with further information for the redevelopment of the west gatehouse complex commercial elements.

Beyond 2017, the applicant will be submitting further applications for those elements not covered above such as the deer farm and the holiday lodges but these will be market driven. Indicatively it is anticipated that these applications could be submitted in 2018 but their development could be further into the future.

From the information above it can be demonstrated that the vast majority of planning applications that will control the delivery of the Masterplan will be submitted in the early part of 2017. Works will continue on into 2018 with further applications for the deer farm and the holiday lodges in 2018.

Whist it should be noted that the above timetable is indicative and market dependant, it is encouraging to see initial investment being directed to the mansion house and other existing assets on the site, with new development being scheduled later in the programme. This is the converse of the more usual scenario where historic environment assets are involved, where there is often pressure for enabling development to precede investment in historic buildings, so as to provide an initial capital injection and to help redress any conservation deficit in funding restoration works. To that extent a programme focussed initially on the existing historic environment assets is to be welcomed.

Proposed uses

Site assessments as part of the master planning process have identified priority and later phase developments within the PDA / SMA boundary as outlined below. a) Main house: The applicants have commented that the prospect of turning Castle Toward into a hotel was ruled out due to issues of competition with other existing hotel businesses in East Cowal. It is therefore proposed to convert Castle Toward mansion house into a dwellinghouse (Class 8) including ancillary housekeeper’s accommodation and also including sui generis use as a commercial / leisure events venue. Such events could include weddings, corporate group bookings, photo and film shoots. The applicants consider that this concept is similar to other large estates with stately homes looking for new sustainable uses, and there examples of this approach across Argyll. The initial phase of the conversion of Castle Toward mansion house is currently being promoted under an application for planning permission (ref. 16/00996/PP) and an accompanying application for Listed Building Consent (ref.16/01405/LIB). b) Secret Garden: It is intended to create an events space within the South Walled Garden for visitors and community events. The Loggia will be reinstated and the ruined Old Auchavoulin House redeveloped as a chapel for wedding ceremonies as an extension to any marquee erected within the walled garden. The existing pond feature will be restored as the Japanese Water Garden. c) Livestock: Discussions about the husbandry of the Estate are ongoing and advice is being taken regarding the quality and potential of the estate. A small-scale deer farm is envisioned where it is intended to incorporate a small abattoir as well as other livestock which will allow food to be produced with its own label from the estate. d) Wider Designed Landscape: The wooded area of the estate will be upgraded and land managed to identify and protect specimen trees. An arborist has carried out an initial inspection and a detailed tree survey will follow. Such works do not require the benefit of planning permission. e) Public Events: It is intended to have local and public events for music, sport and art throughout the year. Making Castle Toward a preferred venue for both events and displays is one of the key objectives of the masterplan. f) Future Public Access: The applicants intend to increase public access in the future as it is hoped to restore the designed landscape, as well as introducing planting concepts which represent today’s horticultural designs. A small charge will be made for access to this area of the mansion house grounds which will help with the upkeep and renovation of the garden. Some areas may need to be closed off from general access at times when events are being held. g) Holiday Cottages: There are a number of dwellings around the estate and it is intended to convert some into holiday lets encouraging weekly visitors into the area. These could include two existing vacant dwellinghouses in the north-eastern corner, the ruined Heather Cottage and the Coach House but proposals have not been specifically identified at this stage.

Additional holiday accommodation will also be created in the northern most part of the estate if a viable market can be identified. The masterplan indicates a total of 18 holiday units located on the sloping field at the northern end of the estate. h) The Coach House: is located the south-western corner of the estate adjacent to Toward Sailing Club. The applicants consider that this is ideally placed to be a commercial development showcasing local produce. The development would also include a café with a gift shop to entice visitors and involve the restoration of four existing residential units. The delivery of this will be dependent upon demand and certainly undertaken after the works to the mansion house.

i) New Dwellinghouses: It is intended to develop small-scale housing around the estate. The scope of such proposals will be limited to the west and south boundaries and the intention is to provide a mix of restoration of new flats within the Coach House (4 units), estate style terraced cottages along the west boundary (14 units in four terraced blocks) and larger detached housing to the south boundary (8 detached dwellinghouses with a single access from the C10 at the western end, 4 detached dwellinghouses with a single access from the C10 at the eastern end, and possible pair of new gatehouses and the reinstated eastern driveway entrance). The proposed developments will target a mixed housing market and tenures, with some of the new homes being aimed at the affordable market.

Conclusion

The applicants consider that the success of the Castle Toward Estate Development relies ultimately on it being both community orientated and financially self-sustainable through the various ventures outlined within the masterplan. They consider that the proposals outlined in this masterplan, which may be subject to change as opportunities arise, describe how such a success can be achieved. In terms of the proposed uses for the PDA and SMA, these are considered to be consistent with the range of uses prescribed in the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan. All aspects of the masterplan proposals will require separate pre-application discussions and formal applications for planning permission, and listed building consent as necessary. The proposed masterplan approach is considered to be generally acceptable in principle in terms of the various development components.

First phase proposals for the mansion house are currently being addressed by the accompanying planning permission and listed building consent applications. However, future proposals for the proposed Parterre Garden on the front lawns will require further consultation with Historic Environment Scotland in terms of the impact on the Garden and Designed Landscape designation. As the mansion house would not benefit from domestic ‘permitted development’ rights, the formalised gardens and boundary treatments would require to be the subject of planning permission whilst any ground engineering works to the ha-ha would require formal permission. The suggested helipad will also require further discussion as to its suitability in the proposed location on the lawn. Overall woodland management is also to be welcomed given the current condition of trees and drainage within the estate, and will be managed by way of an overall Woodland Management Plan. Obligations to undertake works benefitting the estate but not requiring planning permission (such as access improvements or woodland management) could be achieved by planning conditions attached to permissions for separate development proposals as they come forward.

The most significant element of new development would be the proposed housing development alongside the C10 Glenstriven Road. This will require further input in terms of access, density, siting, design, materials and landscaping to ensure that the southern fringe of the designed landscape is not eroded inappropriately and to ensure that unacceptable ribbon development is created in this rural area. Nonetheless, the mixed quality of the trees and other vegetation around the perimeter of the estate afford an opportunity to assimilate sensitively sited development within a woodland context without undermining the landscape quality or the historic importance of the estate. Re-use of the coach house building is to be welcomed however the mix of residential and commercial uses in this area all served by a single vehicular access will require some investigation and consultation with Roads. Reinstatement and renovation or redevelopment of scattered former residential buildings within the estate is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to access and design issues being resolved. Holiday cottages in the northern portion of the estate would also be acceptable in principle, subject to siting, design, access and landscaping issues being resolved in order to successfully integrate these buildings on the higher and more prominent part of the estate.

The proposals to introduce commercial ventures within the estate are to be welcomed to create a mixed development with employment, tourist, educational and leisure opportunities being created, which would satisfy the aspirations of the PDA designation. All commercial proposals will of course be subject to further discussion regarding land use, siting, design, access and car parking. e) Public Access

The existing Core Path network begins at Toward Memorial Hall and enters Castle Toward estate from the existing western vehicular entrance. The Core Path C208(c) then follows the entrance to Castle Toward just beyond the Nissen Huts at the rear, where the path strikes left and northwards towards the junction to Ardyne Farm to the north. The Core Path follows the track up to and past Strathclyde Cottage where it then splits north-west to the Ardyne Car Park and west around the Chinese Lakes where it splits again with a western and eastern route around Corlarach Forest. A Supplementary Access Plan (in conjunction with plan 1544_L (MP) 005 dated September 2016) has been submitted in support of the masterplan proposals. The applicants comment that the proposals seek to ensure continued access to the existing Core Path network that runs through the western boundary of the estate, and to embrace the requirements of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act by enhancing public access to the majority of the estate. The applicant has agreed with the council a private area within the immediate grounds of the mansion house that covers the lawned areas to the front. These will be turned into a formal garden area with paid entrance for the public on days when there are no events on at the house. This will protect and enhance the setting of the historic mansion house whilst defining a private area, within which the important gardens and buildings can be restored and operated on a successful and sustainable basis. This area is identified on plan 1544 L(MP)003.

The applicants comment that the mansion house has operated as a residential school for the past sixty years, but the building has been unoccupied (excepting security staff) for three years. In that time the public have latterly become accustomed to relatively free access to the grounds of the estate. Such access has often included making use of the car park at the side of the mansion house, adjacent to the main entrance. In the past the applicants understand that informal access has sometimes been taken to the grounds by members of the public. However, understandably public access was not encouraged whilst the site was in operation as a residential school.

Recently attempts have been made by some members of the public to secure a further Right of Way, through the estate leading from the former eastern driveway (currently abandoned) to the Chinese Lakes, passing close to the mansion house entrance (approximately thirty metres away) and cutting between the mansion house and the listed walled flower garden and loggia etc. Scotways have currently registered the alleged route as a “claimed” right of way, but this has no legal basis.

Whilst the Council is satisfied that there are no formal rights of way passing through the estate, excepting the core path on the western boundary (a position confirmed by the Council’s Access Officer following legal advice having been taken), the Land Reform Scotland Act affords access to members of the public on a general basis and the applicants comment that they are keen to support this. Such rights nonetheless afford an element of privacy around occupied buildings and there would be opportunity to close off areas temporarily in order to facilitate functions making use of outdoor areas adjacent to the buildings. Consistent with the aims of the Masterplan to encourage public access, the applicant has specified that they intend to provide an additional path on the eastern side of the Himalayan Glen which would effectively replace the path that is also claimed to be a right of way. This would provide a means of pedestrian access round the estate. In providing such a route the applicants would therefore be providing a form of planning gain in terms of the Local Development Plan, by introducing a new formal access route around the eastern side of the estate to supplement the existing Core Path to the west. f) Roads and Transportation Matters

The Area Roads Engineer has comment that Castle Toward is currently accessed from C10 Glenstriven Road within a national speed limit restriction with one vehicular access to the west of the site in use.

The proposal is to re-establish and upgrade old disused vehicular accesses serving the estate in addition to the one currently being used. A new access would be required to serve the proposed housing development of 8 No. properties to east of the Smiddy. It is recommended that for future development involving additional traffic generation that a Transport Assessment should be required. As the existing 40mph speed restriction terminates approximately 500 metres to the east and given the potential increase in vehicle movements associated with these proposals, consideration should be given to extending the 40mph restriction past the existing vehicular access to the west. This in turn would decrease the minimum sightlines required. Based on current speed restriction of 60mph sightlines would require to be 136m x 2.4m compared with 75m x 2.4m based on 40mph restriction.

Further comments provided by the Roads Engineers are summarised below:

 Eastern Access Loop: No walls fences or hedges to be greater in height than 1 metre above the road level. Visibility splays for both of these vehicular access' to be maintained. The eastern sightline of the eastern loop will require a Section 75 Agreement from the adjoining land owner for 136 x 2.4m (60mph);  Access at Single Lodge ruins: The visibility splays will extend across the carriageway onto the land on the south side; this will also require a Section 75 Agreement with land owner for 136 x 2.4 m. (60mph);  New development to east of the Smiddy. No walls fences or hedges to be greater in height than 1 metre above the road level within the visibility splays. (136 x 2.4 m). Upgrade of west vehicular access. No walls fences or hedges to be greater in height than 1 metre above the road level within the visibility splays. (136 x 2.4 m);  All accesses and roads to be designed and constructed as per Argyll and Bute Council’s Development Guidelines;  The new housing development at Single Lodge will require Road Construction Consent and Road Bond due to more than 5no. dwellings being served from this point;  The road infrastructure will require being to adoptable standards;  The access serving the 8no. proposed dwellings to east of the Smiddy will also require adoption with Road Construction Consent and Road Bond;  The proposed housing development of 7no. dwellings to north of west access may be classed as Housing Court and as such will not be adopted by Local Roads Authority. However the proposed 7no. dwellings to south of west access with retail/commercial units with 4no. refurbished dwellings will require the adopted road network to extend to these 7no. dwellings;  Parking levels for residential, leisure and commercial developments to be to current Development Guidelines with adequate provision of Disabled Parking Bays.  A Road Opening Permit will be required for all Works being carried out on or adjacent to the road corridor, including verges. If a Traffic Regulation Order is raised to reduce the speed on the C10 Glenstriven Road to 40mph the developer will be responsible for all costs including the erection of signage;  The developer will also be responsible for the erection of all necessary street name plates for developments.

The applicants have confirmed that the visibility splays recommended above are all on land within their control and should not therefore become an issue for developments served from the C10 Glenstriven Road. All future development proposals will however require pre-application discussions to enable an acceptable design and access solution to be established at an early stage. g) Archaeology

West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) comment that the general area and landscape is archaeologically sensitive based on known records for prehistoric and medieval activity. As such, there is a good chance of unrecorded buried remains turning up in modern development. For this reason, it is likely that extensive survey work would be required as a first stage to any firm proposals in order to prospect for unrecorded finds and features. Subsequent mitigation would have to be tailored to specific development proposals such as evaluation for large areas of proposed ground disturbance or watching briefs during more minor works. It is recommended that a suspensive condition be attached to any planning permissions for future development s requiring a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation. It is advised that the developer must use a professional archaeological contractor to carry out required investigations.

h) Employment

SPP (2014) advises that the planning system should support economically, environmentally and socially sustainable places by enabling development that balances the costs and benefits of a proposal over the longer term. In terms of employment generation, the applicants have confirmed that exact numbers are conditional on a variety of elements, but anticipate that around 77 full time equivalent roles will be created in the construction phase. It will be the applicant’s policy to source all labour, goods and material locally wherever possible and they have already established trading terms with a number of key local suppliers. It is also anticipated that around 91 full time equivalent non- construction roles (i.e. catering, spa, drivers/handymen, farm, gardeners, events support staff, gatehouse development retail and business outlets and holiday lodge development) will be created.

The applicants have confirmed that they have already embarked upon a local recruitment drive. Appointment letters will be issued immediately upon a successful outcome to the current planning applications, with the intention that the mansion house will be available for events by summer 2017. It is intended to continue with construction phases of future developments after the mansion house refurbishment is completed. Therefore the construction roles will be complimentary to the non-construction posts, rather than replaced by them, affording the opportunity for 168 positions to be created through the approval of the masterplan.

i) Habitats and Species

SPP advises that the presence (or potential presence) of a legally protected species is an important consideration in decisions on planning applications. If there is evidence to suggest that a protected species is present on site or may be affected by a proposed development, steps must be taken to establish their presence. The level of protection afforded by legislation must be factored into the planning and design of the development and any impacts must be fully considered prior to the determination of the application.

The Council’s Biodiversity Officer offers comments regarding invasive non-native species (e.g. Rhododendron ponticum in the wooded areas, some Japanese Knotweed which appears to have been spayed but some plants have re-emerged and Himalayan Balsam present on the site) and request for eradication and site restoration programme. The Masterplan lacks an Ecological Report and a request is made for an Arboriculture Survey.

Any future development proposals will be fully assessed for potential impact on habitats and species with requirements for necessary supporting information. The submission of the Masterplan is not the appropriate time for these to be provided; however the applicant will be made aware of legislative requirements for those works not requiring planning permission. Future applications should, as appropriate, be supported by ecological reports and would be the subject of conditions as necessary. j) Sports Facilities

Sportscotland comment that the site contains outdoor sports facilities and that aerial imagery indicates that there is a playing field to the south of the main building.

There are no formal or recognised sports facilities for public use within the estate. The lawn to the front of the mansion house has played host to cricket matches in the past but has never been formally recognised as a sports pitch. Such a proposal would require the benefit of planning permission. Reference to tennis courts on the plans is historic and these facilities are long overgrown. Any other recreational use would have been in connection with the use of the building and estate as an outdoor centre. k) Flooding

The Council’s Flood Risk Management Team offer no objections subject to conditions. It is noted that site elevations appear to range from about 4m AOD on the southern side of the site at the C10 to over 20 m AOD at the main building. A minor watercourse runs through the eastern section of the site and discharges to the coast after passing under the C10. From the submitted information there would appear to be three main sources of flood risk presented to the overall site, namely, fluvial, coastal and surface water. It is therefore recommended that a topographic survey of the site be undertaken in order to establish whether or not a formal Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is required and also to identify topographic lows in which development should be avoided to minimise the risk of surface water flooding. In addition, for coastal flooding, the Council requires a flood protection level from the 1 in 200 year still water level plus allowances for climate change, wave action and 0.6m freeboard. A preliminary estimate suggests that a minimum FFL of 5.20m AOD would meet this requirement. Surface water drainage should be designed to meet the requirements of CIRIA C753 and Sewers for Scotland 3rd Edition.

The Masterplan is an indicative document that sets out how a site could be developed and does extend to the level of detail which would include floor levels. Any future proposals involving new development will require a flood risk assessment to be considered by the planning authority. There is no reason to suspect that flood risk will be a significant constraint in respect of the applicants’ masterplan proposals.

8. CONCLUSION

The proposed Masterplan is considered fit for purpose in that it designates areas of land suitable for different types of development across the Castle Toward estate with appropriate consideration having been given to access requirements, the historic environment and compatibility between existing and potential future uses. The Masterplan provides for a working estate with the aim of a sustainable income to maintain the mansion house and grounds. Proposals such as improved access across the estate, the ability to hold community events and the rent of Castle Toward to Clan Lamont, all represent positive benefits for the community. Meanwhile the proposals will secure the long-term security and improvement of the category B listed mansion house and surrounding structures and the impetus to improve the estate grounds.

The applicant has provided a phased approach detailing when these items are intended to be delivered, with initial investment being focused on the main house. Some of the more ambitious proposals such as the delivery of the deer farm, abattoir and holiday lodges will be market driven, and in an uncertain economic climate it would be unreasonable to expect a specific timetable. Most importantly the applicant has detailed an immediate timetable over the next two to three years. The improvement and maintenance of the mansion house and immediate grounds with the improved access should be completed by summer 2017 with further identified works being completed by the following year. The lack of reliance on finance to be generated by enabling development is welcome and is reflective of the resources available to the applicants to invest in the restoration of historic buildings.

The Masterplan provides for a range of uses which are consistent with the schedule contained within the adopted LDP on the basis of a programme focussed initially on historic building renovation rather than new development. With this in mind, it is recommended that Members approve the Masterplan as a material consideration to future development proposals within the Castle Toward Estate. 9. IMPLICATIONS

Policy: None Financial: None Personnel: None Equal opportunities: None

Author of Report: Brian Close Date: 27/10/2016

Reviewing Officer: David Love Date: 28/10/2016

Angus Gilmour Heads of Planning and Regulatory Services APPENDIX A – CASTLE TOWARD MASTERPLAN

Objectors

20 letters of objection have been received and from these four have not provided postal addresses but are included for completeness.

1. Ms Anna Mackenzie, 5/7 Dudley Avenue South, Edinburgh (email dated 5th September 2016);

2. Mr Chris Baker, Achadh-An-Droma, Dervaig, Isle of Mull (email dated 5th September 2016);

3. Mr Robert Trybis, Stoneywood, Toward (two emails dated 5th September 2016);

4. Mrs Wendy Addison, 15 Highfield Place, Girdle Toll, Irvine (email dated 5th September 2016);

5. Mrs Christine McIntosh, 55 Royal Crescent, Dunoon (email dated 5th September 2016);

6. Mrs Janet Chapman, Lismore, Wyndham Road, Innellan (email dated 5th September 2016);

7. Ms Kerry Nixon, 11 Vinecombe Street, Glasgow (email dated 16th September 2016);

8. Mr Stuart Bradley, 4 Johnston Terrace, Dunoon (email dated 19th September 2016);

9. Ramblers Scotland, Helen Todd, Campaigns and Policy Manager, Caledonia House, 1 Redheughs Rigg, South Gyle Edinburgh (letter dated 22nd September 2016);

10. Mr Alan Stewart, Brackley, Toward (email dated 25th September 2016);

11. Mrs J Trybis, Stoneywood, Toward (emails dated 28th September and 5th October 2016);

12. Mr Ruaridh Pringle, 161 Edward Street, Dunoon (email dated 4th October 2016);

13. Mr. John Mortimer, 6 Manor Way, Tighnabruaich (email dated 21st October 2016);

14. Carol MacQueen (email dated 21st October 2016);

15. Andrew Cruikshank (email dated 21st October 2016);

16. Jim Langford (email dated 21st October 2016);

17. James Murray, Underwood Cottage, Main Road, Sandbank (email dated 28th October 2016);

18. Ms Jennifer Bryson, 173 Marine Parade, Hunters Quay (email dated 3rd November 2016);

19. Mr. Norman New, 11 Wyndham Park, (email dated 4th November 2016);

20. Brian Dewar (email dated 5th November 2016). Supporters

Letters of support have been received from the following:

1. Ms Wilma Hodgett, Widgeon, Loch Craignish Cottages, Ardfern, Nr Oban (email dated 22nd September 2016);

2. Mrs Amanda Hampsey, Janbruan, Davidson Place, North Campbell Road, Innellan (email dated 28th September 2016);

3. Mrs Julie Martin, 3C Ulva Road, Oban (email dated 29th September 2016);

4. Lord Leonard Archibald, 4 Thorncliffe, Blairmore (email dated 30th September 2016);

5. Mr Mario Pellicci, 2 Kirk Brae, Dunoon (email dated 30th September 2016);

6. Miss L McPhail, 68 Auchamore Road, Dunoon (email dated 30th September 2016);

7. Mr Sean Hampsey, Janbruan House, North Campbell Road, Innellan (email dated 30th September 2016);

8. Mrs Kathleen Cunningham, Ravenswood, 81 Argyll Road, Kirn (email dated 30th September 2016);

9. Mr James Cunningham, Ravenswood, 81 Argyll Road, Kirn (email dated 30th September 2016);

10. Mrs Susan Hoy, 143 George Street, Dunoon (email dated 30th September 2016);

11. Mrs Marilyn Norton, Kintyre, Newton Road, Innellan (email dated 30th September 2016);

12. Miss Anne Bell, 474 Anniesland Road, Glasgow (email dated 2nd October 2016);

13. Mrs Jennifer McMaster, Tigh Na Creag, Pulpit Rock, Oban (email dated 2nd October 2016);

14. Ms C Gourlay, 474 Anniesland Rd, Glasgow (email dated 3rd October 2016);

15. Antonio Pellicci (email dated 4th October 2016);

16. Ms Barabal GilleMícheil, 19 York Drive, Portree (email dated 4th October 2016);

17. Mrs. Kristina Foskett, Crawford Cottage, Strathlachlan (email dated 6th October 2016);

18. Ms Phillipa Andrews, March Cottage, Ardgarten (email dated 6th October 2016);

19. Mr. Kevin Foskett, Crawford Cottage, Strathlachlan (email dated 6th October 2016);

20. Mr. Angus MacDonald, 11 Hunter Street, Kirn (email dated 7th October 2016);

21. Mrs. Mary MacDonald, 11 Hunter Street, Kirn (email dated 7th October 2016);

22. Mrs. Sara Adlam, 59 Field Lane, Upton, Pontefract (email dated 8th October 2016);

23. Ms. Jennie Pritchard, via email (email dated 1st November 2016);

24. Lucy Mayer (email dated 4th November 2016);

25. Philip Paterson (email dated 4th November 2016)