Public Document Pack Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal Agus Bhoid

Public Document Pack Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal agus Bhoid

Corporate and Legal Services Director: Nigel Stewart

22 Hill Street, Dunoon, Argyll, PA23 7AP Tel: 01369 704374 Fax: 01369 705948

26 February 2003

NOTICE OF MEETING

A meeting of the BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE will be held in EAGLESHAM HOUSE, MOUNTPLEASANT ROAD, ROTHESAY on TUESDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2003 at 10:30 AM, which you are requested to attend.

Nigel Stewart Director of Corporate and Legal Services

BUSINESS

1. APOLOGIES

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

3. MINUTES (PAGES 1 - 6)

4. TRANSPORTATION & PROPERTY

(a) Proposed Permanent Bridge Weight Restrictions (Pages 7 - 8)

5. DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

(a) Christmas Lighting (Pages 9 - 14)

(b) Planning Application Reference No. 02/00920/MFF, Loch Striven Mussels, Modification to Existing Marine Fish Farm Incorporating Change to Salmon Production and Extension of Lease Area West Shore, Loch Striven (Pages 15 - 30)

E1 (d) Enforcement Action Reference No. 02/00238/ENFOTH (Pages 39 - 42)

Exclusion of the Press and Public 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:-

Paragraph 13 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.

BUTE & COWAL AREA COMMITTEE

Councillor Brian Chennell Councillor Douglas Currie Councillor Robert Macintyre Councillor Bruce Marshall Councillor Gordon McKinven Councillor James McQueen (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Len Scoullar Councillor Isobel Strong Councillor Dick Walsh (Chairman)

Contact: George McKenzie, Area Corporate Services Manager

This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 3

MINUTES of MEETING of BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE held in the QUEENS HALL, DUNOON on TUESDAY, 21 JANUARY 2003

Present: Councillor J R Walsh (Chair)

Councillor Chennell Councillor McQueen Councillor Currie Councillor Scoullar Councillor McKinven

Attending: George McKenzie, Area Corporate Services Manager Eilidh Headrick, Area Committee Services/Information Officer Alan Lothian, Area Manager, Roads Logie Collins, Health and Safety Officer Phillip O’Sullivan, Senior Development Control Officer Martin Turnbull, Area Community Services Officer

1. Apologies

Apologies for absence were tendered on behalf of Councillors Macintyre, Marshall & Strong

The Committee unanimously agreed their sincere condolences be sent to Councillor Strong on the sad loss of her husband Robin.

2. Declarations of Interest

None

3. Minutes

(a) Minute of meeting of the Area committee of 5th December 2002 was approved as a true and correct record. (b) Minute of meeting with Caledonian MacBrayne of 10th December 2002 was approved as a true record.

4. Education

(a) Education Development Grants

Page 2

Education Development Grants were approved as follows:

Organisation Project Cost Grant Awarded

Lochgpilhead Fiddle Workshop £1674 £500 Innellan & Toward Family Centre £790 £357 Dunoon & Cowal Youth Project Disco Project £850 £600 Innellan Youth Club £600 £450

(Reference; Report by Director of Education dated January 2003 – submitted)

5. Transportation and Property

(a) Rothesay Harbour Wave Attenuation Project - Verbal Update

The Area Manager Roads gave the Committee a verbal update on the progress of the Wave Attenuation Project at Rothesay Harbour. He said that there had been no progress to date and a complete reassessment of the project was being undertaken. The Officers of Scottish Water who had been initially involved in this project had moved to other posts or would move in the near future however a contract had been awarded for an amended scheme which should attenuate the waves caused by Ferry traffic to Rothesay Pier. In view of the delays it was doubtful if the scheme would be in place at the beginning of the summer season. The Committee expressed concern at the further delay in this matter and agreed that the Chairman of Scottish Water be invited to attend a meeting with the members of the Committee to discuss the project.

(b) Update Report on Passenger Only Ferry Operations by Caledonian MacBrayne

Page 3

A report was submitted detailing a meeting between officers of the Council, representatives of Caledonian MacBrayne and the Master of the vessel Ali Cat at Dunoon and Gourock Piers and on board the vessel to consider Health and Safety issues and appropriate risk assessments of its operations on the Gourock/Dunoon Passenger Only Ferry Service. This meeting had taken place a consequence of a meeting between the members of the Area Committee and the members of the Management Team of Caledonian MacBrayne held on 10th December. The Area Manager Roads and Health and Safety Officer spoke of their involvement in the meeting and the practical berthing and passenger access tests which had been carried out to establish the safety of the vessel during its operations. As a consequence of this meeting the report before the Committee had been issued acknowledging that the Ali Cat could be operated safely on the Gourock/Dunoon Passenger Only in normal weather conditions and within the guidelines agreed through the risk assessment. The Area Manager then gave a verbal report of a berthing incident which had taken place at Dunoon on the night of Thursday 16th January which had been reported in the press. He read written reports of the events leading up to and during the incident from the Master of the Vessel and the Piermaster at Dunoon, which were at variance with the newspaper account. The Committee was also advised that the incident was being investigated by the MCA and a question on the matter was to be asked in the House of Commons. The Chairman then sought comment from members of the public attending the meeting who had been present or involved in this incident and in general their accounts supported the press report. A representative of the local newspaper advised the Chairman that she had received several first hand accounts of the incident and a subsequent related injury which would be reported in the newspaper but she was more than willing to provide the information to the Committee and would ask other witnesses to write to the Area Corporate Services Manager. The Committee viewed the matter with concern, discussing it at length, involving the members of the public where appropriate and agreed that the following action should be taken.

Decision

(i) The Committee accepted the report on the risk assessment of the vessel Ali Cat’s operations on the Gourock/Dunoon Passenger Only Ferry Service stating that in normal weather conditions and within the agreed guidelines these operations were safe. (ii) Endorsed the Council’s decision to impose a safe wave operating limit of 600 mm at Dunoon Pier (iii) Noted with concern the incident of 16th January 2003 where there were conflicting accounts of events (iv) Agreed that the Area Corporate Services Manager should collate any witness statements of this incident following press coverage of the matter, these statements to be circulated to the Committee at a future meeting and provided to the MCA for any inquiry into the incident. (v) Agreed the Chairman should pursue the suitability of this vessel with Ministers of the Scottish Executive, MP’s and MSP’s (vi) Agreed that continued operation of this vessel, or similar, after April 2003 would require Caledonian MacBrayne to make and fund appropriate alterations to Dunoon Pier to provide safe, all weather berthing facilities for a passenger vessel.

Page 4

A report was submitted concerning a request from Tighnabruaich Pier Group for a long term lease of part of the pier to allow them to access appropriate funding sources.

Decision

The Area Committee: -

(i) agreed a long term lease of nominal value for part of Tighnabruaich Pier be granted to Tighnabruaich Pier Group. (ii) The Pier Group be sent a ‘letter of intent’ containing this decision to allow them to access appropriate funding sources.

(Reference; Report by Area Manager Roads Services – submitted)

(d) Proposed Weight Restriction, Westfield, Strone

A report was submitted advising of a proposal to apply weight restrictions to the Unclassified Road no. 37 Westfield, Strone.

Decision

The Area Committee:-

(i) Noted the information in the report. (ii) Agreed to the application of the weight restriction.

(Reference; Report by Area Manager Roads Services – submitted)

6. Development and Environment Services

(a) Planning Application Reference No. 02/01655/DET, Cunningham Guild & Scott, Refurbishment of Existing Building to form 8 flats and Erection of New Block containing 12 flats, 41 Argyle Street and Land to the Rear of Grand Marine Court, Rothesay

Decision

Approved subject to the conditions contained in the report by the Head of Development & Building Control.

Page 5

(b) Planning Application Reference No's. 01/01553/DET and 02/00247/DET, CRE Energy Limited (agent Scottish Power), (1) Erection of 35 wind turbines and associated infrastructure; de-forestation works; and improvements of access tracks (as amended) (2) Formation of vehicular access and improvements to road junctions (amended to access arrangements for Wind farm (subject of a separate planning application ref 01/01553/DET as amneded)), (1) Land at Cruach Mhor, Glendaruel and (2) Land north east of A8

Decision

The Committee agreed the Heads of Agreement and Conditions contained in the report by the Head of Development & Building Control

The Area Committee noted delegated Development and Building Control decisions made since their last meeting.

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC - MINUTES

Exclusion of Press and Public The Area Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13, Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

(d) Report on Provisional Tree Preservation Order

Decision

The Area Committee approved the recommendation in the report.

Page 6

This page is intentionally left blank Page 7 Agenda Item 4a

ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL BUTE AND COWAL AREA COMMITTEE

TRANSPORTATION & PROPERTY 4th February 2003

PROPOSED PERMANENT BRIDGE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS

1. PURPOSE

This report is to advise the Committee on the proposed notifications bridge weight restrictions in the Bute & Cowal Area

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee is asked to note the proposal to advertise the bridge restrictions

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 Resulting from the Council’s Bridge Assessment Programme, structures were found to require protection by the application of weight restrictions. These restrictions were applied under temporary traffic orders in 2001 for a period of 18months and extended for a period of 6 months. Some bridges have been repaired and the restrictions removed but due to restricted funding remaining weak bridges require permanent orders to protect the Council’s interests.

3.2 The restrictions proposed are:

Route Bridge Name Weight Restriction T MGW B866 Coastal Route Clachavoil Bridge 7.5T B8000 Leanach - Otter Ferry – Gortien North 3T Tighnabruaich C6 Lochgoilhead Carrick Castle Carrick South 7.5T

U12 Succoth Succoth 7.5T U22 Glendaruel West Auchaneleit 7.5T " Glendaruel 7.5T A815 Alexandra Parade Loop Brandon St 7.5T B8000 Leanach - Otter Ferry – Auchrom 10T Tighnabruaich U/A South Campbell Road Newton Burn 10T See Note 3.3.1 U46 Kilbride Road Kilbride 10T C57 Strachur Glenbranter Old Balliebeg Bridge 18T U27 Millhouse Ardlamont Millhouse 18T See note 3.3.2

3.3 Notes

3.3.1 Unadopted Road South Campbell Road – the bridge is within the unadopted South Campbell Rd on which there are questions regarding the ownership and responsibility. The Council, as Roads Authority, does have powers under the Road Traffic regulation

F:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\7\4\6\AI00007647\40203BridgeWeightRestrictions0.doc 1 of 2 26 February 2003 Page 8 Act 1984 to restrict the road due to the risk of danger to persons or traffic using the road.

3.3.2 The U27 Millhouse Ardlamont Road is currently the subject of a 7 ½ Tonne weight limit and this causes operational difficulties to the farm immediately south of the bridge. It is proposed to de-restrict the road north of the bridge, and the bridge limit of 18T then permits most of the farm activities .

4. IMPLICATIONS

Policy The restricted funding on bridge repairs and replacements prevents the Council achieving the strategic objective of reducing barriers in access and services

Finance Removal of the restrictions will require Capital funding

Personnel None

Legal The Council would be exposed to legal action if there was a structural failure of an unrestricted bridge

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

Bute and Cowal Area Committee Paper 6th March 2001 – Weight Restrictions on Bridges in Bute & Cowal Area Council Transportation Committee Paper 22nd February 2001 - Bridge Assessment: Report on requirement for weight limits

For further information please contact Area Manager, Alan Lothian Tel 01369 703959

26 February 2003 Page 9 Agenda Item 5a

ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL BUTE & COWAL AREA DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE 04 FEBRUARY 2003

CHRISTMAS LIGHTING

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Christmas lighting in different parts of Argyll and Bute has evolved over the years, to the extent that between individual communities there are marked differences in the provision made. In many small villages and some larger towns, the decoration available traditionally focused on the provision of a traditional Christmas tree with lights.

1.2 The advent of the Area Committee structure in this authority has seen developments in various communities as local choice has sought to add to the previous provision. This report updates members on the specific circumstances in their Area and identifies budgetary issues to deal with.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the limited budget available for lighting in the Parks cost centre of Amenity Services continues to be allocated for maintenance of the basic Christmas tree provision made in individual villages and towns and that the service currently provided within the terms of the Grounds Maintenance Contract continues to be provided by Grounds Maintenance Direct Service Organisation.

2.2 That where this Area Committee, or other groups wishes to augment the basic provision, that the Area Committee takes a view on funding such provision from resources available to it.

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The current Ground Maintenance Contract let to the Council’s own Direct Service Organisation in 1998 identifies a limited element of support to allow provision of basic Christmas Tree erection and limited decorative lighting as shown in Appendix 1 to this report.

3.2 Expenditure beyond the level in Appendix 1has to be otherwise identified. If from the Amenity Services budget, the main area for use would be the Property Maintenance budget. In 2002/2003 this amounted to:

Bute & Cowal planned maintenance (28%)** - £36,268.96

3.3 Since 1996 the position within individual areas has evolved to the Page 10

point where some parts of Argyll and Bute have substantially more decorative lighting in place than was previously the case. In some areas this has been provided through local trader groups, in others by grant from leisure development sources and in others by fund raising from voluntary groups. A summary of the position for this administrative area of the Council is given as Appendix 2 to this report.

3.4 One feature of any new provision of lighting is that, whatever intentions fund raising groups or other bodies may have had at the time of entering in to arrangements to provide new lighting, there has tended to be an expectation that the Council will take on at least some of the maintenance and erection cost of such decorations. This has resulted in the position where substantial unforeseen costs have impacted on Council budgets. Recommendation 2.2 recognises the legitimate wish of local areas to decide on the level of support they wish to allocate to Christmas lighting above the current budgeted level.

4. IMPLICATIONS

Policy: Decision making at a local level is in line with the Council’s policy on decentralisation.

Financial: Within current budgets any increase in expenditure on Christmas lighting will result in reduced resources for other areas of spend, for example property maintenance, flower bed upgrading or leisure development grants.

Health and Safety: The provision of Christmas lights, although co- ordinated by Amenity Services staff has to be done in conjunction with input from colleagues in Roads to ensure proper health and safety in connecting to street lighting circuits.

Equal Opportunity: None

For further information contact: Andrew R Law Head of Amenity Services 03 January 2003

Telephone 01546 604245

Page 11 Appendix 1

Bute and Cowal Area Committee 4 February 2003

Report on Christmas Lighting

This Appendix lists the budgetary provision for Christmas Lighting for: -

Area Description Cost

Each Area Decorative Lighting (budget for replacement bulbs) £877 Committee

Bute and Cowal Rothesay Christmas Tree £983 Dunoon Christmas Tree £983

Total Annual Budget - Christmas Trees/Lighting £2,843

26/02/2003 Page 12

This page is intentionally left blank Page 13

Appendix 2

Report on Christmas Lighting Bute and Cowal Area Committee 4 February 2003

The local Business Association through public subscription, external funding and Council Leisure Development Grant assistance originally provided the Christmas lights in Dunoon. The money for erection of the lights ran out after the first year, and the money for repair and maintenance of the lights was depleted last year. Amenity Services has previously worked with Roads colleagues to do both, but in 2002 Roads were not able to check and erect the Xmas Lights in Dunoon as they had too much work over the weeks leading up to the usual erection date. Alternative arrangements were made by tendering among local contractors, and it is expected that the cost will be greater than in previous years – when an annual cost of £4,500 (for erection only) was paid out of the AS Property Maintenance Budget. Any repair, or replacement lights will also have to be met from the same budget. In 2001 this amounted to £2,000.

It is anticipated that the final bill for the checking, repair, erection, maintenance and removal of the Xmas 2002 lights will be available soon and an overall accounting for the 2002/03 festive season will be provided verbally to this meeting. The contractor has also advised that further repairs should be carried out over the summer months to secure the long-term future of the lights.

On Bute the proposal is that the local community provide the lights and phase the addition of more over the next few years. The intention is that there be no Council input, although experience suggests that once initial enthusiasm recedes the Council may be left to provide the facility.

Amenity Services continues to provide Christmas trees in both Dunoon and Rothesay and also the various other amenity lights in both town centres throughout the year. For example the lights on the trees on Rothesay seafront and the catenary lights in Dunoon.

26/02/2003 Page 14

This page is intentionally left blank Page 15 Agenda Item 5b

DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - D C Currie PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 13 May 2002 Bute and Cowal Area Committee Committee Date – 4 February 2003

20th January 2003

Reference Number: 02/00920/MFF Applicants Name: Loch Striven Mussels Application Type: Marine Fish Farm Consultation Application Description: Modification to Existing Marine Fish Farm Incorporating Change to Salmon Production and Extension of Lease Area Location: West Shore, Loch Striven

(A ) THE APPLICATION

The application relates to the proposal to modify the existing mussel farm on the west shore of Loch Striven (opposite Ardyne). The lease area would increase in size and its use would be changed to the rearing of salmon smolts. Production levels at the two sites would remain the same overall as current levels on the Ardyne site.

(B) RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that no objections be raised subject to 6 conditions.

The main issues relative to this application are landscape and visual impact; the effect upon fishing and navigation; aspects of pollution and disease; and the effect upon nature conservation interests. Negotiations have been undertaken as a result of issues raised by SNH, SEPA and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department and commitment has been given by the applicant to undertake a fallowing period and to work towards the implementation of an Area Management Agreement. Consequently, and in assessing the proposal against Scottish Executive guidance and Development Plan policies, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable, subject to specific conditions as recommended by SNH, SEPA and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.

Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control 20th January 2003 Author: Steven Gove Page 16

CONDITIONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/00920/MFF

1. The following navigational works shall be undertaken in association with the advice contained within the Northern Lighthouse Board’s letter dated 6th June 2002:

a) the existing navigation buoys, which are yellow in colour, conical in shape and exhibiting a light flashing yellow every 5 seconds, should be repositioned to mark the proposed larger site. One buoy shall be positioned at the extreme north east corner of the group of cages, and the remaining buoy positioned at the south east corner of the group of cages;

b) No objection is given to the lit navigation buoys being substituted by 2 yellow poles, each fitted with a yellow multiplication cross topmark and a light flashing yellow every 5 seconds (FI Y 5s), the visible range of the light should be 2 nautical miles. Again, one pole should be positioned at the north eastern corner of the group of cages and the remaining pole positioned at the extreme south eastern corner of the group of cages;

c) Each pole should be at least 75 mm in diameter and not less than 2 metres in height such that, in any case, the light is exhibited from a point at least 1 metre above any obstruction on the group of cages.

2. The following items shall be undertaken in association with the advice contained within Scottish Natural Heritage’s letter dated 17th June 2002:

a) At the Ardyne site, an alternative method of feeding to the feed barge should be considered, such as hand feeding or a mobile storage raft moored at the base;

b) At the Ardyne site, the rationalisation of the materials and colour of the development to minimise contrast and reflectivity;

c) At the application site, feeding shall be undertaken by a feed cannon as opposed to the feeder barge;

d) At the application site, the layout of the cage and barge structures should be amended such that the overall effect is linear. The barge structure should be placed to the Couston Farm end of the line of cages and moored as closely to them as possible;

e) Anti seal predation measures shall be formulated should this problem arise in the future;

f) No Acoustic Deterrant Devices should be used as the Loch Striven area is viewed as sensitive for marine cetaceans.

3. In association with the advice contained within the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s letter dated 17th June 2002, the stocking plan should be amended to ensure the complete separation of generations.

4. The cages shall be painted in a dark grey colour (BS Colour Code 18 B 25) or similar muted colour, the details of which should be agreed in writing prior to the siting of the cages.

5. The maximum biomass allowed within the application site shall be 500 tonnes.

6. The following works shall be undertaken in association with the advice contained within the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department’s letter dated 15th November 2002: a. a fallow period shall be implemented at the end of each growing cycle, which will now consist of a single input grown on the site until harvest thus removing the need for seawater to seawater movements;

b. the applicant shall actively progress the formulation of an Area Management Agreement that would involve the participation of other fish farm operators, the Argyll Fisheries Trust and bodies representing wild fishery interests.

Page 17

APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 02/00920/MFF

A. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

(i) Site History

The Crown Estate Commission consulted the Council in December 1997 (ref: 98/00072/MFF) regarding the proposal to extend the lease area and to farm salmon on the site. No objections subject to conditions (colour of cages and limitation of area) were raised by the Council on 6th March 1998.

On 27th May 1998, the Crown Estate Commission advised the Council that the existing mussel farm lease should continue unamended in view of concerns relating to the potential effects upon salmon farmers in the vicinity and on wild and commercial fishery interests.

(ii) Consultations

Northern Lighthouse Board (letter dated 6th June 2002)

“We would advise that the existing navigation buoys, which are yellow in colour, conical in shape and exhibiting a light flashing yellow every 5 seconds, should be repositioned to mark the proposed larger site. One buoy shall be positioned at the extreme north east corner of the group of cages, and the remaining buoy positioned at the south east corner of the group of cages.

We would have no objection to the lit navigation buoys being substituted by 2 yellow poles, each fitted with a yellow multiplication cross topmark and a light flashing yellow every 5 seconds (FI Y 5s), the visible range of the light should be 2 nautical miles. Again, one pole should be positioned at the north eastern corner of the group of cages and the remaining pole positioned at the extreme south eastern corner of the group of cages.

Each pole should be at least 75 mm in diameter and not less than 2 metres in height such that, in any case, the light is exhibited from a point at least 1 metre above any obstruction on the group of cages”.

Ministry of Defence (letter dated 10th June 2002)

“The Ministry of Defence has no comments nor objections to this proposal”.

Scottish Natural Heritage (letter dated 17th June 2002)

“SNH has no objection to this development proposal, but recommends the following conditions as set out more fully below.

Landscape – Loch Striven and Kyles of Bute context

It is recommended that Murray Seafoods consider the proposals for Strone Point in the context of rationalising the siting, layout and design of their overall operations, including Ardyne, to avoid the adverse visual and landscape impacts of cumulative developments, namely:

A landscape character dominated by marine aquaculture, where there is an unacceptable level of development that cannot be accommodated by the landscape.

Page 18

Diversifying operations at individual sites, which would tend to create visual muddle and confusion.

Guidance on the impact of marine aquaculture developments on the landscape can be found in SNH’s publication ‘Marine Aquaculture and the Landscape: The siting and design of marine aquaculture developments in the landscape’.

Landscape – Ardyne

There may be opportunities to improve the visual amenity of the Ardyne development as part of the proposed reorganisation. The stated intention to split the fin fish farm aspect of the operation will hopefully reduce the number of cages and the scale of the overall development at Ardyne.

Specifically, the local siting, design and management for this area should be considered to minimise visual intrusion:

• Using an alternative method of feeding to the feed barge, such as hand feeding or a mobile storage raft moored at the base, in view of the proximity to the shore base.

• Adopting a suitable layout that relates to the local topography. The feed barge should be viewed against a local backdrop element if possible.

• Rationalising the materials and colour of the development to minimise contrast and reflectivity, in relation to its setting.

Landscape – Strone Point

Whilst the overall rationale to the siting and design of the proposals and the references made to SNH’s guidance ‘Marine Aquaculture and the Landscape’ are welcomed, there are several adjustments to the proposals that could improve the development’s fit in the landscape.

Specifically, it is recommended that the developer is asked to consider the following options and alterations:

C The proposals are sited adjacent to a slightly elevated (6 metre) stretch of coast road. Although limited, this level of elevation would increase the local visual intrusion. Options toward Constoun Farm should be investigated, where the road is closer to sea level.

C The layout of the cage and barge structures should be amended such that the overall effect is linear. The barge structure should be placed to the Constoun Farm end of the line of cages and moored as closely to them as possible.

Antipredator devices

Although at the present time seal predation is not seen as a problem on the proposed site, in future if this situation changes the applicant will consider exclusion measures.

In areas deemed sensitive for the use of marine cetaceans such as Loch Striven, SNH will object to the use of Accoustic Deterrant Devices”.

Page 19

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (letter dated 17th June 2002)

“Although SEPA considers the Environmental Statement to be comprehensive and well presented, I would advise you that there are some concerns regarding the applicant’s stated reasons for seeking an additional site to compliment their existing unit at Ardyne. These concerns are summarised as follows:

Sections 3.1 and 3.5.1 of the ES state that the proposals would allow generations of fish to be separated. The stocking plan shown in Figure 3.5 however indicates that an overlap would occur between November and January, following the S1/2 input and while the S1 stock remains on site. The stocking plan would require to be altered before complete separate of generations could be achieved.

The fallow period for the site would apply only where one input of smolts (either S1/2 or S1) takes place. With two inputs per year, it will only be possible to fallow two cage positions at any one time.

The proposed regime for treatments against sea-lice infestations includes a treatment of the S1 fish prior to the S1/2 input in October. Complete separation of generations could potentially remove the requirement for this treatment.

Notwithstanding the above, SEPA broadly welcomes the proposals and I can advise you that the applicant has submitted an application for consent for this site, under the terms of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA)”.

Eachaig District Salmon Fishery Board (letter dated 5th June 2002)

“Some months ago, representatives of the Argyll Fisheries Trust and the District Fishery Board had an exploratory meeting with Murray Seafoods regarding the application and therefore had an understanding of what they required by way of separating the age classes of fish at the site while not escalating the overall tonnage held. The subject of Area Management Agreements was also discussed.

The site in question is within a Sensitive Area as described within the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan, this however is a question for Argyll & Bute Council and not the Board.

The Board together with the Argyll Fisheries Trust are very much for Area Management Agreements in respect of fish farms and note that there will be such an agreement between Murray Seafoods Ltd (Loch Striven) and Lighthouse of Scotland (Loch Riddon and the West Kyles of Bute) as yet not including the Trust or wild fishery interests.

While the Site Modification Application and the Environmental Assessment document are very full, the Management Agreement between the applicant and Lighthouse of Scotland Ltd under the heading Fallowing (contained in the Site Modification Application document) states very little except that “Murray Seafoods will, as a matter of good husbandry, move towards a position of fallowing”. This does not appear to be a firm commitment and indeed in the Environmental Statement page 5-5, paragraph three it states that the cage pattern will remain fixed. The present site at Toward is presumably licensed for the holding of up to 1000 tonnes while the proposed additional site would hold up to 629 tonnes both with licences to discharge according to those Page 20

numbers/weight of fish. The stated intention in the application is that there will be no increase in tonnage from that presently produced, however, if the application is successful it will provide scope in the future for the owners to increase production by more than 50%, making the site more attractive to both the owners and any potential buyer who may not wish to subscribe to the promise of not increasing overall production.

To sum up, the Eachaig Board have no objection in principle to the application provide that there is:

1. As a condition of any lease a firm commitment on behalf of the applicants regarding the fallowing.

2. As a condition of any lease, no increase in combined total tonnage between this new site and the present site at Ardyne, namely 1000 tonnes. Should the applicants be sincere, this could also be achieved by Ardyne reducing their total existing tonnage by 500/629 tonnes at the site thereby doing away with any dubiety on the possibility of any future escalation in tonnage.

3. A Management Agreement set up including the Argyll Fisheries Trust and other wild fishery interests as in other parts of Argyll”.

Ruel District Salmon Fishery Board (letter dated 19th June 2002)

“It is well known that salmon, and sea trout, as species are under threat throughout their geographic range and the Ruel has been particularly adversely affected by the general decline. It is against this background that the Board wishes to make representation, particularly as there has been no consultation regarding a proposed new site so close to the boundary of the Ruel Fishery District.

POINTS OF CONCERN (based on the Environmental Assessment prepared by the applicant)

1) The planned concentration of 100,000 smolts in a single cage poses a very severe threat to the genetic integrity of existing wild fish stocks in the event that a cage is ruptured and farmed salmon escape.

2) The towing of cages full of smolts is considered by the Applicant as being an ‘Insignificant to Significant’ risk (Table5.5). The Applicant adduces that it is not a new operation for Murray Seafoods who do it at Ardyne Point. This may be so, but the distance involved across the width of the mouth of Loch Striven, in what is almost the open sea, is significantly greater, as is the risk of escapes.

3) The use of a helicopter to stock cages is a risky operation and there is a recent history of accidents locally, resulting in significant escapes.

4) It is noted that the wind speeds were measured over a six-week period in May/June. This does not give a true picture of the winds to which the cages would be exposed in other seasons nor does it cover the periods (April and November) when transfers of fish and the towing of cages are planned to take place. On the same point, the only reference to wave height is in summer Page 21

(Environment Statement 4.3.3). Thus there is a risk of storm damage to cages and the likelihood of escapes.

5) As regards seal predation, the Ardyne Point site may have been lucky. But 40 seals have been counted on the Burnt Isles so a threat of damage to nets from predators, and consequent escapes, does exist and should not be discounted.

6) The applicant states in the Non-Technical Summary that ‘…fish enter the rivers over relatively short periods of time…’. This is generally true of salmon, however sea trout may remain relatively close to the estuaries of their natal rivers, and are likely to so in the rivers draining into a very large area of seawater like the Firth of Clyde. They may loiter and feed in the vicinity of cages and become infested with sea lice.

7) Again in the Non-Technical Summary, it is adduced that there will be no threat posed by the proposed development. Bit it is being proposed that there will be two cages much closer to the Ruel area than heretofore.

8) Although the proposal would split the biomass level to two sites there will be an increase to a maximum of 1,500 tonnes.

9) No additional staff will be employed; thus there will be no economic benefit to the local economy, a point often argued in favour of fish cages.

With regard to the problem of genetic modification to wild stocks, Professor David Mackay, formerly of SEPA, has said ‘The genetic modification of wild stocks of salmon through cross breeding with increasingly domesticated farmed fish should be recognised by all concerned as a real and present danger. The long term (100 years) effects of such cross breeding are not understood’. He went on to say ‘The case that damage to stocks of sea trout and wild salmon by sea lice associated with caged fish farming is very serious in certain circumstances has been made to the point that it should now be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. The remedy lies with the near elimination of sea lice within cages or separation by distance of cages from the entry of smolts to the marine environment, or a combination of both’.

For all these reasons, and in summary, the Ruel Board is opposed to the establishment of any further fish farm cages in the general area of Loch Riddon and Loch Striven, and in the Kyles of Bute. The salmon fish farming industry has grown up with very little regulation and the minimum amount of monitoring and inspection of its operations. This has been to the detriment of the wild salmonid stocks, to say nothing of the visual impact of sea cages in areas of natural beauty, and any applications for additional sites in an already cage-congested area should not be allowed”.

Clyde Fishermen’s Association (letter dated 4th July 2002)

“The majority of the area lies over a water depth of between 25 and 50 metres and that is where catches of nephrops norvegicus are most prolific.

Page 22

The area is already well trammelled by fish farming at Ardyne Point and Troustan. A further expansion will seriously incommode the indigenous and visiting prawn fleets.

As to the species, one cannot be unaware of the grave concern, particularly in enclosed waters such as Loch Striven, which arises from the polluting effects of salmon farming. The current use is non polluting and to allow change to a use which is likely to be polluting would be unfortunate in the extreme”.

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (letter dated 10th July 2002)

“The application is to develop the existing mussel farm site into 500 tonne max biomass salmon growing site at Strone Point, Loch Striven by Murray Seafoods. There are 2 active registered sites within 6000 metres of the site to be modified. The nearest site is located approximately 3100 metres to the south east and is owned by the applicant. There is a shellfish site located approximately 5500 metres to the north west is owned by Loch Striven Mussels.

The site falls within a category 3 area as defined in the Scottish Executive – Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Farms in Scottish Waters.

The position of the site falls within management area 19b and as such will have an impact on or be impacted upon by sites within the Kyles of Bute management area as defined in “Hydrographically Defined Management Areas for the Scottish Aquaculture Industry” – Turrell, Gillibrand and Brown 1999. It is therefore strongly recommended that management agreements are entered into with other operators sharing the same area with particular regard to stocking, fallowing and disease control.

From the information given, the operation of the site will be at a stocking density level of below 20kg/m3.

The ES strongly supports this application – a strong mitigating factor being that salmon production at Strone Point will be offset by an equal reduction in production at the existing sita at Ardyne Point, as the two sites will be run together. Ardyne Point currently has consent for 1000 tonnes while the new proposed combined maximum biomass for the two sites is only 1062 tonnes. There will therefore be no significant increase in nutrient release into Loch Striven and the bethnic impact at Strone Point will be mitigated by a reduction in impact at Ardyne Point. Current flows at Strone Point are low for the proposed biomass, however predictive modelling of bethnic impact by DEPOMOD suggest that the level of impact would not be unacceptable.

However, there is mention in the ES of moving the existing mussel operation at Strone Point to the Ardyne site which could mean musseks and salmon being cultivated alongside each other and could have disease implications. In addition, the application also proposes that this site, if granted, would be used as a nursery site from which part grown fish will then be transferred to another sea site. This would involve a sea water to sea water movement. The Code of Practice to Avoid and Minimise the Impact of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA) recommends against seawater to seawater movements due to the high risk of disease transmission associated Page 23

with such movements. Finally, there are also no arrangements in place to allow a period for fallowing at the site, either synchronously with other operators in the area, or otherwise.

It is for these reasons that I would recommend refusal of this application”.

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (letter dated 15th November 2002 to Murray Seafoods)

“I refer to your letter and enclosures of the 14 October 2002 to Mr Dave Wyman. Further consultation and consideration has been given to the information you have provided which addresses our concerns detailed in my letter of 10 July 2002 …

Our main areas of concern at that time were around disease risk as no fallow period had been planned for the site and that the site, which was intended to be used as a nursery site, would inevitably require a seawater to seawater movement.

These points have been addressed – a fallow period will be implemented as the end of each growing cycle which will now consist of a single input grown on the site until harvest thus removing the need for seawater to seawater movements.

We are also encouraged by the movement towards a possible area management agreement.

Taking these points into account, we can see no further disease risk implications and are happy to revoke our objection to your application”.

(iii) Publicity

The proposal has been advertised by the Crown Estate and five letters of representation have been received: Mr and Mrs Mackenzie, Braingortan, Colintraive (letters dated 14th June and 16th July 2002); Dunoon & District Angling Club (letter dated 10th June 2002); Argyll Fisheries Trust (letter dated 10th June 2002); and The Scottish Anglers National Association (letter dated 20th June 2002).

The points raised can be summarised as follows:

1) Concern is expressed that the proposed cages and feeder barge would have an adverse visual impact upon this part of the Regional Scenic Area on the basis that the site is visible from an elevated road that runs along the shore line and also from the property known as Braingortan.

Comment: This issue will be addressed in the assessment below.

2) Concern is expressed that there will be an increase in discarded plastic feed bags and other rubbish from Ardyne, which presently are washed up on the west shore of the loch.

Comment: The applicant has stated that, due to the prevailing wind direction, most things that float end up on the Ardyne side of Loch Striven. They state that they are careful about rubbish and have a contract with Shanks Argyll & Bute Ltd for its disposal; they have also invested in a compactor to reduce the bulk of rubbish and to make it easier to handle.

Page 24

3) Dunoon and District Angling Club was founded in 1949, has 166 members and has salmon and sea trout fishings on three local lochs and four rivers. They object to the proposal on the grounds that there is wide spread scientific concern at the danger of dilution of the genetic salmon stocks in rivers through escapees from fish farms; that the presence of salmon cages in estuaries close to salmon rivers have an adverse effect on sea trout stocks, which have declined drastically in recent years; and that the local economy benefits from income from visiting anglers to a much greater extent than employment provided by fish farms. It concludes that this application should be refused unless the applicant enters into a satisfactory Area Management Agreement with the Argyll Fisheries Trust.

Comment: The issue of the effect of the proposal upon wild fishery interests shall be addressed in the assessment below.

4) The Argyll Fishery Trust does not see this application as an improvement to the existing management of farmed fish production in this area and it offers no potential for improvement to the local wild migratory fish populations in the Rivers Ruel and Eachaig. The Trust would like to encourage strategically beneficial applications aimed at reorganizing farmed fish production within the development of an Area Management Agreement that will meet the aims of the Tripartite Working Group in the future.

Comment: The issue of an Area Management Agreement will be addressed in the assessment below.

5) The Scottish Anglers National Association has stated their opposition to the proposal on the grounds that it will not allow production at Murray Seafoods’ sites in the Kyles of Bute to be managed as a single year class in order to facilitate effective and synchronised lice treatment; that, although it involves the farming of alternate sites, the proposal will not allow complete fallowing of the whole area in order to break the cycle of disease and parasites; that the site lies within a “Very Sensitive Area” in the Argyll and Bute Structure Plan with the implications of ‘very restricted development capacity for new or the expansion of existing marine fish farms’.

Comment: These issues will be addressed in the assessment below.

6) Concern is expressed that there are no regulations covering the size and shape of any construction on the water e.g. a feeder barge after permission has been granted.

Comment: The visual impact of the proposal will be addressed in the assessment below.

(iii) Applicants Supporting Information

The applicant has submitted a significant amount of information in support of the application (Environment Statement dated April 2002; letter dated 18th July 2002; letter dated 6th August 2002; and letter dated 24th September 2002). This information is available for Members’ perusal; however, the following represents a summary of the main points:

Whilst the proposed site is located within a Regional Scenic Area, it is considered that the proposal would not intrude on any of the landscape features highlighted in the landscape character assessment for this area.

Page 25

In terms of solid waste inputs, on the basis of the information from the nearby site at Ardyne, and from hydrographic and biological data from the proposed site, it is likely that detectable impacts to the seabed will be largely restricted to within the area covered by the cage group. If smolt- rearing is established at this new site, then this impact at the Ardyne site will be correspondingly reduced.

The soluble discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous will be trickling into a very large body of water, located in an area of reasonable water movement near the entrance to Loch Striven. Also, the amount of nutrient material entering Loch Striven will not be increasing as a result of this development; discharges from the Ardyne site will be reduced correspondingly, and it is estimated that overall impact of this material from Murray Seafoods as a whole will not be changed.

Whilst it is not anticipated that any anti-microbial treatments will be required on the smolt site, any treatments would be fully licensed prescription-only veterinary medicines. One of the main reasons for the proposed development is to split the biomass and separate the generations currently on the Ardyne site, in order to further optimise disease control.

There will be no increase in the threat posed by Murray Seafoods operations to wild fish stocks as a result of the proposed development. There will be the same number of cages overall and no increase in production; cages and production will simply be split between two sites. The containment measures and disease control measures proposed, together with the planned separation of fish generations, will mitigate against escapes and transmission of sea lice and disease. Additionally, there is a fish escape contingency plan for the site which states the procedures to be followed and the notifications to be made in the event of any loss of containment. This includes provision for Murray Seafoods to hold stocks of netting and associated equipment with which to attempt recapture of fish if appropriate. These preparations have been made in consultation with local fisheries organisations, fish farms and other consultees so that actions can be planned to minimise disturbance to wildlife. The nearest recognised salmon and sea trout runs are the Rivers Ruel, some 25 km to the west at the top of Loch Riddon, and Eachaig, approximately 25 km to the northeast in the inner Firth of Clyde.

For the duration of the current farm operation at Ardyne in Loch Striven, Murray Seafoods has had very few predator problems. The absence of significant bird roosting and breeding sites in the area, and the absence of seal breeding or haul-out sites, means that few problems are anticipated at Strone Point. The anti-predator strategy proposed centres on use of a 6th mesh bird net covering each cage to deter birds taking smolts or feed. No subsea predator nets will be used. Measure such acoustic seal scares, currently used at Ardyne, may be introduced only if necessary; all measures employed will be in accordance with codes of practice and in compliance with Development Consent conditions.

B. POLICY OVERVIEW AND ASSESSMENT

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE

National Planning Policy Guideline 13 “Coastal Planning” seeks to distinguish different types of coastline and it is considered that the subject site lies within an ‘undeveloped coast’ (Paragraph 22), in which developments that would yield Page 26

social and economic benefits as opposed to having significantly detrimental landscape impact should be considered.

In addition, in Paragraph 49, it is advocated that the potential benefits of marine aquaculture to the local economy should be acknowledged whilst due regard should also be paid to the quality of the landscape. Structure and Local Plans should provide a locational and policy framework in consultation with the industry, local communities, the Crown Estate and Scottish Natural Heritage.

The Scottish Executive has published ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’. This identifies those areas that are likely to be particularly environmentally sensitive to new or expanded developments and in which stringent criteria should be required to be fully met before consent might be given.

There is also an advice note ‘Marine Fish Farming and the Environment’ that provides detailed guidance on the landscape, siting and design of fish farms together with a variety of other factors including operational requirements and constraints on development.

With regard to the Scottish Executive’s ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’, the application site is located within a Category 3 area within which there appear to be better prospects of satisfying environmental requirements, although the detailed circumstances will always need to be examined carefully.

The guidelines also advocate the use of the following criteria in the assessment of applications:

Landscape and Visual Impact

The site is located within the South Cowal Regional Scenic Area and is in an open location characterised by isolated development along the single track roads that run along part of the relatively narrow shore area around the loch. The site is visible from part of the Colintraive-Coustonn road and the Toward-Inverlochan road.

The site is a considerable distance from the nearest dwellinghouses and roads and the cages would not encroach more than 50 metres from the shore. Any visual impact would be further reduced by ensuring that the cages are slate grey in colour. In these circumstances, it is considered that the proposal would not have a significantly adverse visual impact.

Effect Upon Recreation and Tourism

The Department is not aware of any significantly adverse effects that the proposal would have on recreation and tourism within this area.

Effect Upon Fishing and Navigation

It is intended that the comments of the Northern Lighthouse Board regarding navigation be attached as conditions to the Council’s recommendation.

In respect of fishing, the Clyde Fishermen’s Association has expressed concern that the proposal would “seriously interfere with fishing activity at the entrance to Loch Striven”. The Executive’s ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’ states that advice on fishing interests can be obtained from the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) and in its letters dated 10th July and 15th November 2002, it has not raised any objection to the proposal on these grounds. In addition, a Page 27

relatively small area would be affected, which is, in fact, already disturbed by the existing mussel farm.

Whilst taking the comments of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association into account, in this instance, the Department is giving greater weight to the (arguably) more objective comments of SEERAD.

Aspects of Pollution, Disease and Carrying Capacity

The Department intends to incorporate the comments of both SEPA and SEERAD as conditions attached to the Council’s recommendations on the application. A fallow period will now be implemented at the end of each growing season, which will consist of a single input grown on the site until harvest thus removing the need for seawater to seawater movements.

In addition, Murray Seafoods have given a commitment to working towards the setting up of an Area Management Agreement. This is an agreement set up between fish farm operators, the Argyll Fisheries Trust and wild fishery interests and Murray Seafoods’ position has been welcomed by SEERAD.

Nature Conservation Interests, Including Wild Fish Populations

Scottish Natural Heritage have not raised any significant concerns in respect of the impact of the proposal upon nature conservation.

Bodies representing wild fishery interests such as the Argyll Fisheries Trust, the Ruel District Salmon Board, the Eachaig District Salmon Board, the Dunoon & District Angling Club, etc. have expressed concern regarding the proposal. These concerns relate to the suggestion that the successful breeding of escaped farmed fish could reduce the genetic diversity and vigour of wild salmon and sea trout populations and that disease and parasites could be transferred from farmed fish to wild fish.

In response to these concerns, the applicant advises that, as they are hoping to split production, they are not increasing the number of nets and cages. They consider that the risk of escapes should, in theory, not increase and they have also upgraded their procedures and equipment to reduce the risk of escapes to the lowest possible level. As regards the sea-lice risk, the applicant puts forward that one of the main reasons for the new site is to make the management of this problem easier.

The issues raised by the wild fishery interests are clearly both site specific and also part of a wider campaign. On balance, it would not appear to the Department that there is sufficient evidence to recommend refusal of the application on these grounds. The applicant’s intention to move towards an Area Management Agreement that would include the wild fishery interests has received positive responses from a number of sources, including the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department.

Access and Infrastructure Requirements

The Department is not aware of the proposal having any access or infrastructure implications.

Methods of Operation (including lighting and noise)

The Department is not aware that the proposed methods of operation would have any significant implications from a noise and lighting perspective.

Page 28

ARGYLL & BUTE STRUCTURE PLAN

PROP CP 1 of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan 2002 requires that the Local Plan shall include policies relating to shell-fish and fin-fish farming and that these policies will accord with the principles and categories contained in ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’, issued by the Scottish Executive.

The details of the Local Plan have yet to be formulated, however, it is considered that the proposal, subject to the relevant conditions, would accord with the provisions of the Argyll & Bute Structure Plan 2002 given that the principles and categories contained in ‘Locational Guidelines for the Authorisation of Marine Fish Farms in Scottish Waters’ are being followed.

COWAL LOCAL PLAN 1993

The site is located within the South Cowal Regional Scenic Area and, as such, the proposal should be assessed against Policy POL RUR 1 of the Cowal Local Plan 1993 that seeks to maintain and enhance the landscape quality of the area. The proposal should consequently be assessed against the following criteria: environmental impact; locational/operational need; economic benefit; and servicing and infrastructure implications.

These issues have been adequately addressed in the preceding paragraphs with the consequence that, subject to the relevant conditions, the proposal is considered to accord with the provisions of the Cowal Local Plan 1993. Page 29 Page 30

This page is intentionally left blank Page 31 Argyll and Bute Council Agenda Item 5c Development and Environment Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE BUTE AND COWAL

App. No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision

0202188NMA James Gray CA 16/12/2002 06/01/2003 PER Land West Of Undercliff Marine Parade Eccles Road Hunters Quay Dunoon Argyll Erection of dwelling (amended position)

0202124DET Mr M J Stephenson 09/12/2002 13/10/2003 PER Holly Robin Lodge St Catherines Cairndow Argyll

Erection of gates and gate pillars and retention of raised garden area 0202119ADV Bill Mneimneh 04/12/2002 06/01/2003 PER Lampost, Situation At Junction Of Marine Parade/cammesreinach Brae Marine Parade Hunters Erection of double-sided directional sign on existing lampost 0202093DET Mr And Mrs A Fowler 04/12/2002 03/01/2003 PDD Wyndham Court 7 Wyndham Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute Erection of garage

0202086DET Stewart McNee (Dunoon) Ltd 06/12/2002 13/01/2003 PER Plot 3 Of Calderwood Innellan Dunoon Argyll

Erection of detached dwellinghouse

0202080GDCO Department For Work And Pensions 27/11/2002 19/12/2002 NOO Employment Service Job Centre George Street Dunoon Argyll Alterations to job centre

0202068DET Mark And Jacky Eagar 29/11/2002 06/01/2003 PER Bathach Ban Cottage Cairndow Argyll PA26 8BE

Erection of extension to dwellinghouse

0202065DET Mr Russell Buchanan And Miss Rita Gillespie 25/11/2002 14/01/2003 PER Cot House Hotel Sandbank Dunoon Argyll PA23 8QS

Erection of dining room conservatory and alterations to roof for conversion of attic to bedroom, sitting room and 0201996DET Mr And Mrs D A Newbery 26/11/2002 07/01/2003 WDN 81 Sandhaven Sandbank Dunoon Argyll PA23 8QW

Erection of Extension

PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED 16 January 2003 Page 1 of 4 Page 32 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE BUTE AND COWAL

App. No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision

0201992DET Mr And Mrs N Sutcliffe 18/11/2002 13/12/2002 PER Upper Ardroscadale Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 0QG

Alterations to farmhouse and outbuildings

0201990DET Mrs Marion J Brown 15/11/2002 01/01/2003 PER 52A Ardbeg Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 0NL

Installation of replacement windows and erection of porch

0201969COU Clanaid Health Care Services 08/11/2002 06/01/2003 PER Holly Lodge 37 Eccles Road Hunters Quay Dunoon Argyll PA23 8LB Change of Use of Residential Care Home to Three Flats

0201968DET Stewart McNee (Dunoon) Ltd 06/11/2002 09/12/2002 PER Plot 17 Dhailling Park Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8FB Erection of a dwellinghouse

0201965HYDR Scottish Hydro-Electric Power Distribution Ltd 05/11/2002 19/12/2002 NOO Site Of Former Sawmill, Ardkinglas Cairndow Argyll

Diversion of 33 Kv overhead power line

0201964ADV Miss Elspeth Kerr 29/10/2002 13/12/2002 PER 3 Victoria Street Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 0AJ

Erection of handwritten sign

0201963NMA Errovale Ltd 31/10/2002 13/12/2002 NRR Land West Of 59 Ardbeg Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute

Erection of dwellinghouse (amended design, position and orientation) 0201961DET Stewart McNee (Dunoon) Ltd 29/10/2002 09/12/2002 PER Plot 12 Dhailling Park Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8FB

Erection of dwellinghouse

0201956OUT Clanaid Health Care Services 08/11/2002 06/01/2003 PER Garden Ground Of Holly Lodge Eccles Road Hunters Quay Dunoon Argyll Site for the erection of a dwellinghouse

PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED 16 January 2003 Page 2 of 4 Page 33 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE BUTE AND COWAL

App. No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision

0201954DET Mrs Anne Marie McLean 06/11/2002 16/12/2002 PER 22 Mount Pleasant Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9HJ Erection of a timber deck

0201953NID Director Of Housing And Social Work 08/11/2002 19/12/2002 PER Education Office 2 Tom-A-Mhoid Road Dunoon Argyll PA23 7BE Erection of Resource Centre

0201907DET Fyne Homes 01/11/2002 06/01/2003 PER Mill Lade John Street / Mill Street Rothesay Isle Of Bute

Environmental improvements incorporating hard and soft landscaping and a new footbridge 0201883DET Andrew Briggs 28/10/2002 20/12/2002 PER Ground Floor Flat Argyll Villa Tighnabruaich Argyll PA21 2ED Erection of sunroom

0201873DET Carry Farm Ltd 22/10/2002 13/12/2002 PER Carry Farm Ardlamont Kames Tighnabruaich Argyll PA21 2AH Retention of 2000 litre LPG tank

0201864DET Amec Wind Energy 28/10/2002 20/12/2002 PER Land North Of The Brannie, Clachan Flats, By Cairndow Cairndow Argyll Erection of 50 metre high wind monitoring mast

0201861DET Mr And Mrs Dixon-Spain 17/10/2002 16/12/2002 PER Grounds Of Dunans Castle Glendaruel Colintraive Argyll

Erection of timber building for residential, storage and workshop use 0201858DET Heather Lowing 17/10/2002 05/12/2002 PER 9 Castle Street Port Bannatyne Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 0ND Retention of replacement windows

0201760DET Mr Alexander Sinclair 23/10/2002 20/12/2002 PER 31 Ardbeg Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 0NL

Erection of Garden Shed

PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED 16 January 2003 Page 3 of 4 Page 34 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE BUTE AND COWAL

App. No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision

0201709OUT Mr And Mrs W Brown 07/10/2002 20/12/2002 REF Land Adjacent To Hoop House Bullwood Road Dunoon Argyll Erection of house

0201708ADV Development Management Group Scotland Ltd 18/12/2002 07/01/2003 PER Swimming Pool No.1 Car Park Alexandra Parade Dunoon Argyll PA23 8AD Erection of signboard (Retrospective)

0201705DET Dunoon Ceramics Ltd 05/11/2002 19/12/2002 PER Unit 2 Hamilton Street Dunoon Argyll PA23 7RG

Erection of security fence and erection of storage unit

0201617COU John McKinlay 11/09/2002 19/12/2002 PER Newhouse Toward Dunoon Argyll PA23 7UG

Siting of static caravan on a temporary basis for residential accommodation 0201450VARCO Drimsynie Contruction Ltd 06/01/2003 WDN The Meadows Toward Dunoon Argyll

Deletion of provision of play area and deletion of provision of a 2.00 metre timber fence

PER=APPROVED WDN=WITHDRAWN NOO=NO OBJECTIONS AAR=APPLICATION REQUIRED CGR=CERTIFICATE GRANTED OBR=OBJECTIONS RAISED PDD=PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PRE=PERMISSION REQUIRED NRR=NEW APPLICATION REQUIRED 16 January 2003 Page 4 of 4 Page 35 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE

CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE

0201192ERD Fyne Homes 22/07/2002 21/08/200 17/12/200 WARAP Erection of dwellings - (STAGE I) - Foundations, substructure, underground drainage Site Bounded By Edward Street/ Mary Street Edward Street Dunoon Argyll PA23 7JN 0201479ALT Mr And Mrs Norman MacLeod 10/09/2002 02/10/200 06/01/200 WARAP Alterations to form conservatory and decking Grianan Ascog Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9ET

0201535ERD Fyne Homes Ltd 18/09/2002 18/10/200 31/12/200 WARAP Erection of flatted housing 7 storey building

Grounds Of Former Foley House Hotel High Street Rothesay Isle Of Bute 0201621ERC Dunoon Ceramics Ltd 25/09/2002 25/10/200 09/01/200 WARAP Erection of storage unit and fencing

Unit 2 Hamilton Street Dunoon Argyll PA23 7RG

0201624AOW Ms Sheila Scott 04/10/2002 11/10/200 17/12/200 WARAP Amendment to warrant (to install unvented hot water cylinder) ( 01/01341/ALT) Greystanes 25 Kirn Brae Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8LL

0201673ALT Royal Noel Taylor 11/10/2002 13/11/200 12/12/200 WARAP Alterations to form kitchen extension and bathroom Cedar Lodge Bullwood Road Dunoon Argyll

0201785ERC Loch Fyne Oysters Ltd 04/11/2002 11/11/200 06/01/200 WARAP Erection of depuration and grading shed

Site Of Former Sawmill, Ardkinglas Cairndow Argyll

0201808AOW Mr Neil Blair 11/11/2002 29/11/200 09/01/200 WARAP Erection of Dwelling - STAGE II - PLOT 5 Only (amendment to 02/01632/ERD) Land North Of Heathbank Kames Tighnabruaich Argyll

0201819ALT Ian Maclachlan 12/11/2002 25/11/200 14/01/200 WARAP Alteration to lower flat (to relocate kitchen)

Claddy House Sandbank Dunoon Argyll PA23 8QB

WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn LETTER=Letter of Comfort EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant SUPERS=Superseeded by new Building Warrant 16 January 2003 Page 1 of 4 Page 36 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE

CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE

0201884ERC Director Of Housing And Social Work 22/11/2002 26/11/200 23/12/200 WARAP Erection of "Day Care Centre" - STAGE 1 - Foundations/Substructure and Underground Drainage Education Office 2 Tom-A-Mhoid Road Dunoon Argyll PA23 7BE 0201885ALT Mr And Mrs A Johnston 22/11/2002 10/12/200 06/01/200 WARAP Alterations to main upper entrance stair Adelaide House 8 Mountstuart Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9DY 0201943AOW J G MacGillivray And Miss A McInnes 29/11/2002 24/12/200 13/01/200 WARAP Amendment to Warrant (to delete lounge fire and insert balanced flue gas boiler) (amendment to warrant Orange Bank Innellan Dunoon Argyll PA23 7SH

0201956MTP Ms Linda Gravells 02/12/2002 18/12/200 06/01/200 WARAP Alterations and Change of Use to form tearoom

Kilchattan Bay Post Office Kilchattan Bay Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9NG 0201965EXT Mr Alex More 03/12/2002 04/12/200 08/01/200 WARAP Erection of unheated conservatory

47 Ardenslate Road Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8NL

0201982AOW Errolvale Ltd 05/12/2002 18/12/200 23/12/200 WARAP Amendment to reposition house and remove dormers Land West Of 59 Ardbeg Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute

0201986ALT Michael Elliot Anderson 06/12/2002 10/12/200 13/01/200 WARAP Alterations to dwelling (to adapt bedroom to bathroom) 6 Kirn Gardens Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8HG

0202017ALT The Executor Of Miss Alexandra Montgomery 09/12/2002 11/12/200 06/01/200 WARAP Alterations to form bathroom

47 Crichton Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9JT

0202018ALT James Irvine 11/12/2002 18/12/200 23/12/200 WARAP Alterations to re-locate kitchen and form en-suite bathroom First Floor Eastmost Flat 33 East Princes Street Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9DN

WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn LETTER=Letter of Comfort EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant SUPERS=Superseeded by new Building Warrant 16 January 2003 Page 2 of 4 Page 37 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE

CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE

0202019AOW Lomond And Argyll Primary Care NHS Trust 11/12/2002 06/01/200 06/01/200 WARAP Amendment to add X-ray room (amendment to 02/01549/ALT) Dunoon District General Hospital 360 Argyll Street Dunoon Argyll PA23 7RL 0202021ALT Argyll And Bute Council 09/12/2002 08/01/200 09/01/200 WARAP Alterations to remove skylight window and upgrade kitchens Dunoon Grammar School Ardenslate Road Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8LU 0202022ALT Argyll And Bute Council 11/12/2002 18/12/200 06/01/200 WARAP Alterations to remove roof windows Rothesay Primary School Townhead Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9JH 0202024ALT Argyll And Bute Council 06/12/2002 18/12/200 06/01/200 WARAP Alterations to remove roof windows

Rothesay Academy Academy Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 0BQ 0202053ERC Dr And Mrs P R Ratcliffe 16/12/2002 14/01/200 14/01/200 WARAP Erection of Aviary

Cowal Bird Garden Sandbank Dunoon Argyll

0202063AOW City Of Edinburgh Council 16/12/2002 06/01/200 06/01/200 WARAP Amendment to re-locate building and alter facade details (Amd to 00/01620/MTP) Sawmill Benmore Dunoon Argyll PA23 8QU

0202073ALT Paul Mercer 17/12/2002 18/12/200 06/01/200 WARAP Alterations to provide en-suite to dwelling 29 Craigmore Road Rothesay Isle Of Bute PA20 9LB

0202094AOW Mrs A Sutherland 19/12/2002 30/12/200 31/12/200 WARAP Amendment to approved plans (Amd to 02/00876/ALT)

Home Farm Glendaruel Colintraive Argyll PA22 3AB

0300004AOW Colin Chisholm 24/12/2002 14/01/200 14/01/200 WARAP Amendment to delete window changes and install solid fuel stove/flue (01/00784/ALT) The Larches Sandbank Dunoon Argyll PA23 8PW

WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn LETTER=Letter of Comfort EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant SUPERS=Superseeded by new Building Warrant 16 January 2003 Page 3 of 4 Page 38 Argyll and Bute Council Development and Environment Services BUILDING CONTROL DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE

CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE

0300007AOW Secretary 24/12/2002 13/01/200 13/01/200 WARAP Amendment to layout and toilets (01/00272/ALT) Cowal Indoor Bowling/Kirn And Hunters Quay Bowling Clubs 18 Ardenslate Road Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8LT 0300009DEM S MacDonald 31/12/2002 09/01/200 09/01/200 WARAP Demolition of dwellinghouse Fern Lea 20 Park Road Kirn Dunoon Argyll PA23 8JJ

Document is Restricted Page 42

This page is intentionally left blank