Argyll and Bute Council Development and Infrastructure

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______

Reference No: 14/00180/PPP

Planning Hierarchy: Local Development

Applicant: Nick Hunter

Proposal: Site for Erection of 20 Dwellinghouses

Site Address: Land Southeast of Oban Seil Farm, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, by Oban ______

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

 Site for erection of 20 dwellinghouses;  Formation of vehicular access to adoption standard.

(ii) Other specified operations

 Connection to public water main;  Connection to public drainage system. ______

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Having due regard to the Development Plan and all other material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission in principle be refused for the reasons appended to this report. ______

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Area Roads Manager Report dated 10/02/14 advising no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions regarding the formation of the vehicular access, clearance of visibility splays and provision of parking and turning areas. Scottish Water Letter dated 17/02/14 advising no objection to the proposed development but providing advisory comments for the applicant regarding connection to the public systems.

West of Scotland Archaeology Service Letter dated 12/02/14 advising that the site is within an area of some archaeological potential based on the presence of other recorded sites and monuments of prehistoric and medieval date in the surrounding landscape. Accordingly, whilst not objecting to the proposed development, recommend that a condition be imposed requiring the developer to secure a programme of archaeological works.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency Letter dated 13/02/14 providing details of their standing advice for developments.

Seil Community Council Letter dated 24/02/14 advising that “they recognise that no area can remain static and that diverse and affordable housing is essential to maintaining a vibrant community for years to come”. However they raise concerns regarding the following aspects of the proposal:

 Affordable housing - given the complexity of the site it would be useful to know how “affordable” the houses could be.

Comment: Where permissions are granted with affordability obligations, conditions are employed to provide developers with various methods of securing affordable housing, to comply with Council policy.

 Road safety issues with regards to the increase in traffic using the B844

Comment: The Area Roads Engineer has been consulted on the proposed development and has raised no objection in terms of road safety issues.

 The proposal is premature given that the consideration of the new Local Development Plan (LDP) is imminent.

Comment: During the processing of the application a point was reached in the LDP process where the Reporters’ findings were imminent. For that reason the application was deemed premature to be determined in advance of the publication of the Reporters’ findings and the application was held in abeyance pending the outcome of the LDP process.

The site has now been designated as Countryside Zone in the adopted LDP and has been assessed as such in Appendix A of this report.

The reporter’s findings referred to above are detailed at Section P below.

 The proposals are too vague too be considered.

Comment: The application is for planning permission in principle with no design details having been submitted. The purpose of the application is to establish the acceptability of the principle of development only.

 The density of the proposed development is out of keeping with the rest of the island.

Comment: This comment is addressed in Appendix A of this report.  The development would be visually intrusive and detrimental to the natural beauty of Seil.

Comment: This comment is addressed in Appendix A of this report.

 Concerns about the capacity of the sewage system, and the effects of water run off given the gradient of the site.

Comment: Scottish Water has been consulted on the proposed development and has raised no objection with regard to ability of the public system to accommodate the proposed development. If permission were to be granted, a condition would be appropriate, requiring details of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System to address surface water drainage as part of the approval of matters specified in conditions.

 The site should continue as farmland.

Comment: The adopted LDP allocates the site as Countryside Zone.

 Areas of the site appear to be outwith the boundaries of the Housing Allocation.

Comment: The site is designated as Countryside Zone in the adopted LDP. This has superseded the previous Housing Allocation which formed part of the 2009 Local Plan. The application has been assessed in Appendix A of this report in the light of the Countryside Zone policy now given effect by the new plan.

The above represents a summary of the consultation responses. Full details are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. ______

(E) PUBLICITY:

The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 procedures, closing date 27/02/14. ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

79 representations have been received regarding the proposed development, 50 objections and 29 in support (including one from the applicant).

Objections

An objection submitted by Houghton Planning Ltd is submitted on behalf of 27 residents, 16 of whom have submitted separate objections.

Mr Paul Smith High Pastures Oban PA34 4TR (15/02/14) Mr David Alsop, Rycroft, Balvicar, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TE (16/02/14) Mr Stuart Reid, Torbeag, Clachan Seil, By Oban, PA34 4TJ (17/02/14) Mrs Ann Reid, Torbeag, Clachan Seil, By Oban, PA34 4TJ (17/02/14) Mrs Jennifer Banner, Ardencaple Lodge, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TN (17/02/14) Mr Carl Banner, Ardencaple Lodge, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TN (17/02/14) Miss Jayne Brown, Ardencaple House, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TN (17/02/14) Mr David Pearson, Dunvegan, Cnoc-A-Challtuinn, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR (15/02/14) Ms Myra MacDonald, The Old Post Office, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TL (16/02/14) Mr John Jess, The Old Post Office, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TL (16/02/14) Marie & Ed Lohman, 4635 Hunting Lodge Drive, Saint Cloud, FLORIDA (20/02/14) Dr David Pond, Hazelmount, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TL (27/02/14) Jim Cunningham, Dorum Mor, Cnoc a Challtuinn, Clachan Seil (18/02/14) Mrs Fiona Hall, Craigiebeag, Clachan, Isle of Seil, By Oban, PA34 4TL (26/02/14) Mrs Ruth Odling, 61 Ellenabeich, Easdale, Oban, PA34 4RQ (26/02/14) Mr Julian Taylor, Ardencaple Farm, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TN (27/02/14) Mr Hamish Munton, The Old Inn, Ellenabeich, Oban, PA34 4RF (19/02/14) Mrs Kristina Wood, Ardencaple House, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TN (24/02/14) Mr James Moss, An Isean Eala, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TL (26/02/14) Mr & Mrs R G Butcher, 18 Riffams Drive, Pitsea, Basildon, Essex, SS13 1BG (19/02/14) Mr Roger Barrett, Eas Mhor, Cnoc a Challtuinn, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR(26/02/14) Ms Elaine Rodger, 5 Cnoc Beag, Balvicar, Seil, PA34 4TH (26/02/14) Mr Iain Rodger, 5 Cnoc Beag, Balvicar, Seil, PA34 4TH (26/02/14) Mr Peter MacAlister, Cutter Three, The Moorings, Clachan Sound, PA34 4TL (23/02/14) Mrs Eileen Kingsbury, Craigard, Cnoc A Challtuin, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR (27/02/14) Mrs Sue Moss, An Isean Eala, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TL (26/02/14) Graeme Bruce, The Old Coach House, Ellenabeich, Isle of Seil, PA34 4Q (27/02/14) Mr Martin Hadlington, An Fhuaran, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TL (28/02/14) Mrs Ana P Bein & M MacInnes, Braefoot Farm, Balvicar, PA34 4RA (19/02/14) Ms Marina Gordon, Hazelmount, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TL (26/02/14) Andrew & Susan Durley, Olrig, Clachan Seil, By Oban, PA34 4TL (25/02/14) Kevin Hall, Craigiebeag, Clachan, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TL (26/02/14) Mrs Barbara Rennie, Feorlin, Balvicar, Oban, PA34 4TF (20/02/14) Carol Collis, An Fhuaran, Clachan Seil, Oban (24/02/14) Houghton Planning Ltd, 102 High Street, Dunblane, FK15 0ER (26/02/14) Derek Pretswell, 16 Creran Gardens, Oban, PA34 4JU (21/02/14) Christina M Wills, Cuan Ard, Cuan Ferry, Isle of Seil, PA34 4RB (24/02/14) K W Butler, Achraich, Clachan Seil, By Oban, PA34 4TN (25/02/14) Lorne Fowler, Keno Hill, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TN (25/02/14) Claire Hartley, Keno Hill, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TN (25/02/14) Mr Hugh Martin, The Old House, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TL (27/02/14) Mr & Mrs James Mellor, Innishail, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TJ (21/02/14) Mr. Trevor Davies, Fioryn, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TJ (25/02/14) Miss Helen Blakeney, Reay Cottage, Clachan Seil, Oban, PA34 4TL (26/02/14) D P Foster, Fasgadh, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TJ (25/02/14) Rose Wands, The Old House, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TL (27/02/14) Mr M Petch, 11 Ver Road, Redbourn, Herts, AL3 7PE (18/02/14) Mrs Kimbra Barrett, Eas-Mhor, Cnoc-A-Challtuinn, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR (26/02/14) Messrs Sandilands, Easdale By Oban Argyll PA34 4RF (24/02/14) Mr Nick Bowles, 2 Cnoc Beag, Balvicar, Isle of Seil, Oban (26/02/14)

Summary of issues raised

 At the 2009 inquiry into the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’, the Scottish Government Reporter recommended that the housing allocation be removed from the local plan. This recommendation was ignored and the allocation remained in the local plan. The allocation has been carried through to the Local Development Plan (LDP) but that proposal has been objected to. Accordingly, the application should be considered premature and determination postponed until the LDP process has been concluded.

Comment: During the processing of the application a point was reached in the LDP process where the Reporters’ findings were imminent and the application was deemed premature to be determined in advance of the publication of the Reporters’ findings. The application was held in abeyance pending the outcome of that process.

The site has now been designated as Countryside Zone in the adopted LDP and has been assessed as such in Appendix A of this report. The Reporters’ findings are detailed at Section P below.

 Road/pedestrian safety issues.

Comment: The Area Roads Engineer has been consulted and has raised no objection on road and pedestrian safety issues, subject to conditions regarding the formation of the access, clearance of visibility splays and provision of parking and turning areas.

 The application is not accompanied by sufficient information to allow a decision to be made.

Comment: The application is seeking planning permission in principle with no layout, design or infrastructure details having been submitted. The purpose of this application is to establish the principle of development only.

 The proposal would result in ribbon development damaging the separation between Balvicar and Clachan Seil and would set a precedent for further development.

Comment: The site has now been designated as Countryside Zone in the adopted LDP and has been assessed as such in Appendix A of this report.

 The proposal would result in the loss of good quality agricultural land.

Comment: The site has now been designated as Countryside Zone in the adopted LDP and has been assessed as such in Appendix A of this report.

 If sold the properties would end up being second homes and this would be no benefit at all except to the landowner who would make money.

Comment: This is not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

 The scale and density of development is not appropriate and is out of keeping with this rural site.

Comment: This point is addressed in the assessment of the application in Appendix A of this report.

 The proposal will have an adverse visual impact to the detriment of the island.

Comment: This point is addressed in the assessment of the application in Appendix A of this report.

 The proposal will have an adverse impact on tourists visiting the area which will in turn have an adverse impact on local businesses.

Comment: This statement is not founded on any evidence that the development will be detrimental to tourist trade to the area.  Affordable housing should be located near to jobs, schools, shops etc so that the costs associated with these are also affordable.

Comment: Given the recommendation of refusal in accordance with development plan policy there is no need to consider the merits of affordability provision in this location.

 The proposal will have an adverse impact on an already inadequate sewerage system.

Comment: Scottish Water has advised that Clachan Balvicar Treatment works has residual capacity.

 The application should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment to consider the impact that sediment run off from the development will have on oysters in Seil Sound.

Comment: The scale of development proposed does not require to be reviewed by means of the Environmental Impact Assessment process. Surface run off from the site could be adequately dealt with by way of a condition imposed on any grant of permission and any impacts from sediment run off during construction would be for SEPA to investigate.

 The island does not need such a development, there is no housing shortage with many houses and building plots on the island having been on the market for a number of years showing that there is no demand for such a proposal.

Comment: The Council, through the previous local plan process identified a need for additional housing on Seil. However, the adopted LDP does not continue the previous Housing Allocation with the site having been designated as part of the Countryside Zone.

 Concerns regarding flooding of property due to surface water run-off from the development.

Comment: Should permission be granted this could be addressed by way of a condition requiring a Sustainable Urban Drainage System to serve the proposed development.

 The application does not consider the difficulties of developing such a complex site with a difficult access.

 Lack of neighbour notification.

Comment: The neighbour notification was undertaken by the Council in accordance with the appropriate procedures.

Supporters

Gillian Kitching, 23 Westfield Road, Turriff, AB53 4AF (19/03/14) Ghita Craig, Ross Mhor, Knipoch, by Oban, PA34 4QT (21/03/14) Nina Craig, Ross Mhor, Knipoch, by Oban, PA34 4QT (21/03/14) Jytte Craig, Ross Mhor, Knipoch, by Oban, PA34 4QT (21/03/14) Colin Craig, Knipoch Hotel, Knipoch, by Oban (21/03/14) Gillian, Patrick & Alexander Cadzow, Duachy Farm, Kilninver, PA34 4QU (21/03/14) Lisa Anderson, 5 McKelvie Road, Oban, PA34 4GB (21/03/14) Jan Hewitt, Flat 30, Creag an Airm, Oban (21/03/14) Lorna Ferguson, Crunluath, Strachur, PA27 8DL (21/03/14) Arlene Colewell, Lonan Byre, Glenlonan, by Oban, PA34 4QE (21/03/14) Sheila R. MacGregor, 5 Dalrigh, Dunollie Road, Oban, PA34 5PG (21/03/14) Mrs Bette Hunter, Oban Seil Farm, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TN (23/03/14) Miss Lise-Lotte Hunter, Oban Seil Farm, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TN (23/03/14) Mr Henry Hunter, Oban Seil Farm, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TN (23/03/14) Mr Nick Hunter, Oban Seil Farm, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TN (23/03/14) (APPLICANT) Mr Nick Gilmour, 9 Balvicar Road, Balvicar, by Oban, PA34 4TF (20/03/14) S. Craig, Ross Mhor, Knipoch, by Oban, PA34 4QT (21/03/14) Jean Campbell, Dalanasaig, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TJ (24/03/14) Graham Campbell, Dalanasaig, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TJ (24/03/14) Sarah Campbell, Dalanasaig, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TJ (24/03/14) Donald Campbell, Dalanasaig, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TJ (24/03/14) Keith MacLean, Morvargh, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TJ (24/03/14) Heather MacLean, Morvargh, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TJ (24/03/14) Katinka Hunter, 46 Kirk Street, EH6 5EZ (24/03/14) Char Bennett, 32 Caiystane Terrace, Edinburgh, EH10 6SR (24/03/14) Craig Nicholson, Dalanasaig, Isle of Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TJ (24/03/14) Linzi Ferguson & Dave Monro, 39 Easdale Island, by Oban, PA34 4TB (24/03/14) George Houston, Iolair Mhara, Acha, Balvicar, by Oban, PA34 4RJ (24/03/14) Julia Hannah, Finlaggan, Clachan Seil, by Oban, PA34 4TL (24/03/14)

Summary of issues raised

 The proposed development would benefit the community as a whole to increase the population and introduce a more diverse age group;

 The proposed development would allow more families with children to come to the area and support the local school which is important for a sustainable future for this area;

 The proposed development would encourage a younger generation to come to the area;

 The average population of Seil is retired and it is likely they will need support to live independently at home in the future. Consideration should be given to who will care for this group in the future;

 A scoping study was undertaken by Seil and Easdale Community Council to give an indication of the priorities in planning for the future of the community. By far the biggest concern for those who completed the survey was the lack of affordable housing on Seil and the proposal would go some way to address this clearly expressed need.

The above represents a summary of the issues raised. Full details of the letters of representation are available on the Council’s Public Access System by clicking on the following link http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/content/planning/publicaccess. ______(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation No (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994:

(iii) A design or design/access statement: No

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development No e.g. retail impact, transport impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: ______

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

(i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: No ______

(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of No Regulation 30, 31 or 32: ______

(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the assessment of the application

(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in assessment of the application.

Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015

LDP STRAT 1 – Sustainable Development LDP DM 1 – Development within the Development Management Zones LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 8 – Supporting the Strength of our Communities LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design LDP 11 – Improving our Connectivity and Infrastructure

Supplementary Guidance

SG 2 – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQ) SG LDP ENV 14 – Landscape SG LDP ENV 20 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 4/2009.

Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 ______(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an No Environmental Impact Assessment: ______

(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application No consultation (PAC): ______

(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No ______

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No ______

(O) Requirement for a hearing: No

In deciding whether to hold a discretionary hearing, Members should consider:

 How up to date the Development Plan is, the relevance of the policies to the proposed development, and whether the representations are on development plan policy grounds which have recently been considered through the development plan process.

 The degree of local interest and controversy on material considerations, together with the relative size of community affected, set against the relative number of representations and their provenance.

In this case, whilst the site was allocated in the former ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009 as a Housing Allocation Area suitable for development with 20 units, this allocation was removed in the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 which now constitutes the adopted development plan. The proposal conflicts fundamentally with the provisions of an up to date plan which is the primary consideration against which acceptability of the proposal should be assessed, and there are no other material considerations which would warrant anything other than determination in accordance with that plan

As the application is being recommended for refusal, it is not considered that a hearing would add value to the determination process and it is recommended that Members do not undertake a hearing prior to the application being determined. ______

(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations

Planning permission in principle is sought for erection of 20 dwellinghouses on an area of land to the southeast of Oban Seil Farm, Clachan Seil, by Oban.

The application was submitted in January 2014 when the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009 remained in force, although at that time the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 had been through public consultation and was being prepared for Examination in Public later during the year. The former ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009 identified the site as a Housing Allocation (H-AL 5/23) for development with 20 residential units with a minimum of a 50% affordability component.

During the initial processing of the application the Planning Service considered that despite being an application for permission in principle the application was deficient given the scale of the proposal in a relatively rural and undeveloped context and that some further detail of design, layout, access, infrastructure and planting was desirable. The applicant was invited to submit further information and a masterplan addressing the following:

 Vehicular access point from B844;  Internal road layout;  Plot layout including location of the affordable housing element of the development;  Strategic landscaping details;  Open space provision to meet policy requirements;  Surface water drainage arrangements;  Phasing of the development.

The applicant experienced difficulty in providing the information and ultimately employed an agent to provide the details required which resulted in a delay in the information required being progressed. As a result of this delay, the proposed LDP then reached a point where the Reporters’ findings were imminent and the Planning Service deemed that it would be premature to determine the application in advance of the publication of the Reporters’ findings, and the application was put on hold. The information required in the items listed above was never supplied in an acceptable form, partly due to the uncertainty over the impending LDP outcome.

Having had regard to objections to the plan and the outcome of the Examination into the plan, the Reporters’ findings were published in November 2014.

In their response the Reporters pointed out that the housing allocation had failed to deliver any housing since the adoption of the previous Local Plan in 2009 and that the Council had not advanced any evidence of specific housing need for the Island of Seil

The Reporters stated that the evidence provided in the representations to the allocation showed that the site is clearly inappropriate for housing development and its topography would not be conducive to the development of affordable housing. They further advised that any housing on the site would be unduly prominent and would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of this part of Seil. Concerns were also raised over the capacity of the road network to accommodate further housing development.

In summary the Reporter raised serious doubt as to whether the site could deliver housing within the plan period and concluded by stating it would be inappropriate to endorse the allocation of the site for housing in the local development plan.

Accordingly the housing allocation was not continued into the new plan and the land was designated as part of the ‘Countryside Zone’. The LDP was formally adopted by the Council in March 2015.

The adopted LDP only offers encouragement to ‘small scale’ development on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building development within the Countryside Zone.

The proposal by virtue of its scale does not satisfy the provisions of the recently adopted LDP, with the Reporters having specifically considered the merits of continuing the housing allocation into the new plan, or dispensing with it in favour of inclusion of the site in the Countryside Zone, and deciding in favour of the latter.

The proposal has elicited 79 representations - 50 objections and 29 in support. ______(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______

(R) Reasons why planning permission in principle should be refused.

See reasons for refusal detailed below. ______

(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan

N/A ______

(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No ______

Author of Report: Fiona Scott Date: 28/07/15

Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr Date: 30/07/15

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 14/00180/PPP

1. The adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 includes the site within the ‘Countryside Zone’ within which Policy LDP DM 1 limits development opportunities to ‘small scale’ developments which comprise infill, rounding off, redevelopment or change of use of existing buildings, or to developments which are underpinned by an exceptional case, none of which apply in this instance. ‘Small scale’ is defined as up to 5 units with the application proposing 20 units falling within the ‘medium scale’ class of development, defined as between 6 and 30 units.

The relative merits of developing the site as opposed to maintaining an undeveloped gap to separate existing development have been recently examined as part of the Local Development Plan process, which has concluded that the site is unsuitable for development on the scale proposed. The development of the site with 20 dwellinghouses would result in the introduction of an inappropriate scale of new development into a countryside location, which would extend the settlement boundary of Clachan Seil in an unacceptable manner contributing to settlement coalescence, which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider landscape and the designated Area of Panoramic Quality within which the site is located.

The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policies LP DM 1, LDP DM 3, LP DM 8, LP DM 9 and Supplementary Guidance SG 2 and SG LDP ENV 13, being an up to date expression of policy established by the recently adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015. APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 14/00180/PPP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ within which Policy LDP DM 1 restricts the presumption in favour of new housing development to ‘small scale’ (defined as not exceeding 5 units) on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use basis, subject to compliance with other relevant policies and supplementary guidance.

Supplementary Guidance SG LDP HOU 1 gives a general presumption against ‘medium scale’ housing development (which this application proposes) within the Countryside Zone.

The development of the site with 20 dwellinghouses is contrary to the provisions of adopted LDP Policy LDP DM 1 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP HOU 1.

Note: SG 2 has been approved by the Council but has yet to be approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes a material consideration of significant weight, but less than that of adopted policy.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The proposal is for 20 dwellinghouses on an area of land to the southeast of Oban Seil Farm, Clachan Seil.

Planning permission in principle is sought with no layout, design or infrastructure details having been submitted. The purpose of this application is to establish the principle of development, with the intention that if permission in principle were to be granted, matters of layout and design should be addressed by way of future application(s) for approval of matters specified in conditions.

The site is an area of open farmland with small pockets of tree cover situated adjacent to the B844 public road. The site slopes up from the B844, bounded on its north elevation by the settlement of Clachan Seil. On all other sides the site is bounded by open countryside with a number of dispersed dwellinghouses.

Policy LDP DM 1 only gives encouragement to ‘small scale’ development within the ‘Countryside Zone’ which is defined as not exceeding 5 units and should be on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment or change of use basis. The application proposes 20 units on the site which therefore falls within the ‘medium scale’ class of development defined in the plan as being between 6 and 30 units.

Policy LDP 8 supports new sustainable development proposals that seek to strengthen communities where they comply with other relevant policies and supplementary guidance. However, as detailed above SG LDP HOU 1 gives a presumption against ‘medium scale’ housing development within the Countryside Zone.

Policy LDP 9 seeks developers to produce and execute a high standard of appropriate design and ensure that development is sited and positioned so as to pay regard to the context within which it is located. Development layouts shall take into account the location or sensitivity of the area and development with poor quality or inappropriate layouts or densities including over development of sites shall be resisted. It is important to contain rural settlements and the undeveloped gaps that exist between them. The development of this site with 20 dwellinghouses would extend the settlement boundary of Clachan Seil in an unacceptable manner resulting in settlement coalescence. It is considered that development of the site with 20 dwellinghouses would result in an unacceptable environmental impact as it would result in the introduction of an inappropriate scale of new development into a countryside location, which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider landscape and contrary to recently adopted policy.

Having due regard to the above, the proposal is considered contrary to Policies LDP DM1, LDP 8, LDP 9 and Supplementary Guidance SG 2.

C. Natural Environment

The site is situated within the Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality where consideration has to be given to Policy LDP DM 3 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13 which seek to resist development in, or adjacent to, an APQ where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of the landscape. For the reason given above development on the scale proposed would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider landscape and contrary to recently adopted policy

The proposed development is not located within or adjacent to any sites of nature conservation importance.

Having due regard to the above, it is considered that the development of the site with 20 dwellinghouses would have an adverse impact on the Area of Panoramic Quality contrary to the provisions of policy LDP 3 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13.

Note: SG 13 has been approved by the Council but has yet to be approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes a material consideration of significant weight, but less than that of adopted policy.

D. Built Environment

The site is identified as being within an area which has the potential to raise archaeological issues based on the presence of recorded sites and monuments of prehistoric and medieval date in the surrounding landscape. West of Scotland Archaeology Service, whilst not objecting to the proposed development have recommended that a condition be imposed in the event of permission being granted requiring the developer to implement a programme of archaeological works.

Having due regard to the above, with an appropriate safeguarding condition, this aspect of the proposal could be considered consistent with policy LDP 3 and Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 20 which seek to ensure that existing archaeological and future discoveries are retained and protected.

Note: SG LDP ENV 20 has been approved by the Council but has yet to be approved by the Scottish Government. It therefore constitutes a material consideration of significant weight, but less than that of adopted policy. E. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters.

The application proposes to form a new vehicular access from the public B844 Kilninver – Ellenabeich road to serve the development. The Area Roads Engineer has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to the formation of the access and the junction with the public road which should be to adoptable standard, clearance of visibility splays and provision of an appropriate level of parking and turning to serve each dwellinghouse.

Having due regard to the above, with appropriate safeguarding conditions, this aspect of the proposal could be considered consistent with policy LDP 11 which seeks to ensure that suitable infrastructure is delivered to serve new developments.

F. Infrastructure

The application indicates that drainage and water supply are intended to be via connection to the public systems. Scottish Water has raised no objection advising that Clachan Balvicar Treatment Works currently has capacity to serve the proposed development. They do advise that augmentation of the existing systems at the developer’s expense may be required.

Having due regard to the above this aspect of the proposal could be considered consistent with policy LDP 11 which seeks to ensure that suitable infrastructure is delivered to serve new developments.