PLANNING APPLICATIONS BOARD: 09 NOVEMBER 2017

17/00279/PPD – APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A HOUSE AND INSTALLATION OF AN AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMP AT 18A LOWER SANDWICK,

Report by Director of Development

PURPOSE OF REPORT Since the planning application is considered by the Appointed Officer to be sensitive, the application is presented for decision. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendation being implemented. SUMMARY 2.1 This is an application for planning permission to erect a dwelling house, included associated external spaces, car parking, installation of an air source heat pump and a private waste water treatment system, at 18A Lower Sandwick, , Isle of Lewis. The application site is located within but on the edge of the main settlement of Stornoway according to the Local Development Plan – Development Strategy Map. 2.2 Planning Permission in Principle has previously been granted on the site for the erection of a house, predicated on a connection being made to the public sewer. 2.3 The Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (the Plan) Policy 6: Water and Waste Water requires that new buildings in areas with public sewerage systems are required to connect to the public sewer unless the developer can demonstrate that there are specific technical reasons as to why the development cannot reasonably be connected to a public sewer. SEPA policy position is stronger, in that it objects outright to private systems in settlements with a population greater than 2000 population equivalent. 2.4 The underlying reason for these policy positions is that the perpetuation of private waste water systems has public health and environmental implications and risks establishing an undesirable precedent in areas which by virtue of their population/density have been subject to public investment in developing and subsequently maintaining a public sewerage system. 2.5 In response to Policy 6 the developer submitted an engineer’s drawing identifying a possible pipework route, with two manholes and a pumping chamber, accompanied by a cost estimate and an engineer’s statement that he should apply for a private system. Other than cost, no technical reasons are articulated. Policy 6 is therefore not complied with and nor is SEPA’s objection addressed. The proposed house complies with Development Plan Policy in all other respects. 2.6 Material considerations include the advice of SEPA as a statutory consultee, lending significant weight to a refusal. Consideration is also given to the site specific circumstances with the site at the far end of the township road with no potential for future housing development beyond the proposed site due to the topography and therefore minimising the risks of negative impact on neighbour amenity and some weight is given to this. 2.7 Having assessed the proposal against the provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan (the Plan), it has been concluded that the proposal would be contrary to Policy 6 of the Plan by virtue of no technical reasons being submitted to support the applicant’s position. SEPA’s fundamental objection carries significant weight. While there are mitigating site specific purposes they could set an undesirable precedent and do not outweigh the policy position. The application is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons appended to this Report. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out in Appendix 1 to the Report. Contact Officer: Helen MacDonald Planning Officer Tel: 01851 822 690 Email: [email protected] Appendices: 1 Reasons for Refusal 2 Location and Site Plans Background Papers: None DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL

4.1 This is a planning application by Mr and Mrs A Smith, 18B Aignish, Point, Isle of Lewis. The proposal is for planning permission to erect a dwelling house, included associated external spaces, including car parking, the installation of an air source heat pump and private waste water treatment system. 4.2 The application site is located within but on the edge of the main settlement of Stornoway according to the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan – Development Strategy Map. It is sited at the seaward end of the Lower Sandwick road. The application site is a regular rectangular shape and has a significant slope across the site. It is accessed from the Lower Sandwick road. 4.3 The application site is approximately 0.08ha in size. 4.4 The submitted site plan details the layout of all aspects of the development, including house footprint; parking and turning areas; access road (which is existing); proposed private waste water treatment system; and garden areas. Fresh water connections are shown and provision for the management of surface water is also proposed. The site has a significant degree of fall from the west to the east, and section details have been provided to demonstrate proposed finished levels to allow for suitable development of the site. 4.5 The site is not within an area designated for natural or built heritage. The site is within an aviation safeguarding zone but below the consultation height. 4.6 The application site is within the Main Settlement of Stornoway.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES 5.1 The planning application by Mr and Mrs A Smith, 18B Aignish, Point, Isle of Lewis, was registered as valid on 06 June 2017. 5.2 The planning application was advertised for public comment in the public notices section of the Stornoway Gazette in the publication dated 15 June 2017, as required by regulations.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT () REGULATIONS 2011 6.1 The nature and scale of the proposal on a vacant brownfield site is such that the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 are not applicable.

PREVIOUS PLANNING DECISIONS RELATING TO THE SITE 7.1 The following planning history relates to the site:

Ref No Description Decision Date

11/00374/PPP Erect dwelling house Application Permitted with 10 October 2011 Conditions

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 8.1 The full terms of the responses to statutory and other consultations by the Planning Authority can be read on file at the Development Department. The following is a summary of those relevant to the determination of the application. COMHAIRLE TECHNICAL SERVICES (ROADS) 8.2 ‘Provide off road" parking and turning for 2 cars within the site boundary. It is the responsibility of the developer to prevent surface water flowing from the main road on to the property’ SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA) 8.3 ‘…1.5 We note it is proposed to locate a garage at basement level with the living area elevated above. Several different drawings have been provided in support of this application which indicates ground levels across the site and proposed levels for the house. The present ground levels were derived to a local datum and it is only on the “Longitudinal Section A-A” drawing 05A (31.5.17) that it is indicated that a level of 10.995 is approximately equal to 4.4mAOD. Therefore using this relationship, a conversion factor was derived. Applying this to the levels for the site as illustrated on the “Location Plan & Existing Levels” drawing 01A (31.5.17) they vary from 3.7mAOD and 3.99mAOD along the south-east site boundary to 5.8mAOD to 5.9mAOD along the north-west boundary line. It is proposed to locate the house towards the north-west end of the site with the lowest ground levels in this vicinity, in the order of 4.5mAOD. 1.6 As the ground levels for this proposed development lie approximately 1m above the estimated 1 in 200 year water level for the area of 3.4mAOD (based on extreme still water level calculations), there is an adequate freeboard at this development site. Therefore we have no objection to this development on flood risk grounds. 1.7 On the “Longitudinal Section A-A” drawing 05A (31.5.17) it is indicated that there is a proposal to build up the ground levels in the garden area close to the south-east site boundary line. It is planned to increase the present ground level of 3.77mAOD to approximately 4.401mAOD. As the existing ground level lies outwith the approximate 1 in 200 year floodplain, we would have no objection to this proposed change in ground levels. … We object to this application unless it is modified to connection to public sewage system. 1. Foul drainage 1.1 The development is located within the settlement boundary of Stornoway, a town with a population of greater than 2000 population equivalent. 1.2 Our Policy and Supporting Guidance on Provision of Waste Water Drainage in Settlements …states: “In settlements with a population greater than 2000 population equivalent, SEPA will expect new developments within or close to the settlement boundary identified in the local plan to connect to the public sewerage system and will object to the development of private sewerage systems within these areas.” In line with this policy we therefore object to this development unless it is modified to include connection to public sewage system. We do note the information submitted to support the proposal for a private system, however, our policy only considers such site specific issues in smaller settlements.’

REPRESENTATIONS 9.1 No representations against the proposal have been received from third parties. VIEWS OF THE APPLICANT 10.1 Having consulted with “Scottish Water” as to why the main sewer connection did not go further down the road for the remaining 7 houses on the street, their answer was, probably that if they had trenched any further they would be going through rock and therefore not viable from a cost perspective to them.

10.2 It will require the road to be closed (no verge, pavement or other route available) off during excavation, effectively restricting the use of the road to 7 houses for an unknown period of time.

10.3 As the house next door to the building plot is using a private septic tank and the fact that the building plot is on the very edge of the “Settlement area” (past the end of the road in Lower Sandwick), with the disruption that would be caused by closing off the road and because of the exceptional technical difficulties, I would like this planning application referred to the planning committee at the earliest possible date.

ASSESSMENT OF EIA 11.1 The proposed nature, scale, and location are such that an EIA is not required.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.1 Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require that planning decisions be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An assessment against the policies and provisions of the Development Plan is therefore made initially. This is then followed by an assessment of any other material planning considerations, prior to a conclusion and recommendation as to the determination.

12.2 Policy 1 – Development Strategy – Main Settlement provisions

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WITHIN MAIN SETTLEMENTS WILL BE ASSESSED AGAINST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING: a) a siting and design appropriate to the characteristics of main settlements in line with Policy 4 Siting & Design; b) accordance with density levels for housing as set out in Housing Policy 13; c) where new development is to be sited on a greenfield site within the Stornoway Development Area in accordance with Policy 18, the developer must provide a justification for the development of the greenfield site in preference over a brownfield site; d) retention of open space areas within the settlement for amenity and recreation purposes.

12.3 The development proposal is to erect a single-storey house with basement-level integral garage within the Main Settlement of Stornoway. The principle of this development does not present a significant change to the character of the existing site or the wider settlement. In terms of design, it is somewhat unusual, but the levels and position of the site minimise its visibility from public view. The site is at the end of the Lower Sandwick road, which has a wide mix of traditional and modern build properties. Although the design is quite unique in its setting, the form, scale and use would not be out of character with this part of the main settlement. 12.4 The siting and design of the proposal is considered in more detail in the response to Policy 4 below. 12.5 The development meets the housing density policy test as detailed in Policy 13. 12.6 The proposal site is not located within the ‘Stornoway Town Centre Development Area’. 12.7 Open Space within the Stornoway settlement area is mapped for the purposes of Policy 25 of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan and does not include the application site. In terms of the definition of Open Space, the site area does not provide recreational or amenity space. 12.8 It is concluded that subject to compliance with Policy 4, the development would be in compliance with Policy 1.

12.9 Policy 2 – Assessment of Development

Underpinning each of the policies in the Plan is a requirement to demonstrate that development proposals:  will not significantly adversely affect biodiversity and ecological interests and, where possible, result in an enhancement of these interests (The online Biodiversity Planning Toolkit should be consulted for general advice and good practice on habitats and species, and the NBN Gateway for site specific biodiversity data);  will not result in pollution or discharges outwith prescribed limits to the air, land, freshwater or sea;  have been designed to take account of the requirements of safeguarding zones notified by the Health and Safety Executive, Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services, Ministry of Defence, Marine Consultation Areas, relevant Harbour Authorities and Marine Protected Areas. All development will be assessed for its impacts individually, incrementally and cumulatively to ensure no significant detrimental effects arise.

12.10 The proposal would not evidently affect biodiversity or ecological interests. 12.11 Due to the proposal for a private waste water treatment system, there is the potential for increase ecological impact or pollution discharges. The prescribed limits are dependent on the system and licensing of that system. However, this matter should be adequately addressed through Building Standards and licencing requirements for a development of this scale. 12.12 The proposal does not increase the likelihood of harmful erosion. The site is not contaminated. Though the site is within an aviation safeguarding area, the development height is below consultation height and there are therefore no aviation interests affected by the proposal. 12.13 It is concluded that the development complies with Policy 2. 12.14 Policy 3 - Zero and Low Carbon Buildings

Low and/or zero carbon generating technology must be installed in all new buildings (with the exception of those listed below) to reduce predicted carbon dioxide emissions from buildings to meet the minimum building standards.

A sustainability statement detailing the technologies proposed and demonstrating proposed achievement of Bronze Active Sustainability rating (achieving or exceeding Building Standards), must be submitted as part of planning applications for new buildings.

This requirement does not apply to any of the following: a) buildings which will not be heated or cooled, other than by heating provided solely for the purpose of frost protection; d) ancillary buildings that are stand-alone, having an area less than 50 square metres; e) buildings which are designed so that the energy necessary is integral to the structure requiring minimal additional mechanisation (the passive house concept).

12.15 The proposal includes a Sustainability Statement, indicating the use of an air source heat pump as a sustainable source for the property. Standard conditions relating to the installation of an air source heat pump would require to be attached to any consent 12.16 Policy 4 - Siting and Design

Development proposals must demonstrate a satisfactory quality of siting, scale and design that respects and reflects the characteristics of the surroundings. Development proposals for buildings will be permitted where they satisfy all of the following: a) siting relates to the settlement pattern, landform, surrounding buildings and open spaces, and accords with Policy 1 Development Strategy and Policy 5 Landscape; b) design, scale, form and mass integrate with the streetscape, townscape and/or landform, avoiding dominating the sky line, and relate to design elements that make a positive contribution to the character of the surrounding area; the mass of larger buildings should be managed by breaking up the design elements; c) materials, colour, proportions and detailing complement the streetscape, townscape and/or landscape; d) car parking arrangements accord with the Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout Supplementary Guidance which forms part of the Development Plan; e) plot layout accommodates: i. the development footprint placed and orientated to respect the characteristics of the local area; ii. service requirements, safe road access, parking provision integrated to minimise adverse impacts on the environment and public road; iii. adequate amenity space consistent with the type and character of the development; iv. landscaping, and boundary treatments in positions, form and scale that integrate the development into its setting. Developments which result in an over-development of a plot of site by virtue of density, scale or height will be resisted; f) levels, excavation and under-building – buildings on sloping sites should be set at level which will compensate excavation depth with unacceptable levels of visible under-build. Surplus materials from excavations should be landscaped to reflect the natural landform. Pre and post development levels and landscaping measures should be detailed on submitted plans; g) the amenity of neighbouring properties is considered in the siting and design of new development to ensure reasonable levels of amenity are retained in respect of noise, disturbance or lighting, overlooking and overshadowing. Development will not be supported where it will result in a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

12.17 As discussed under response to Policy 1, at paragraph 12.3 above, it is considered that the siting of the proposed house suitably relates to the settlement pattern, appearance of surrounding buildings and the general siting and plot layout common to the area. The site slopes and the building level is split level to address this. The single-storey portion of the house which houses the living accommodation is very minimally set down in relation to the nearest adjacent neighbouring house, and due to the sloped basement level, incorporating a garage would relate acceptably to the landform. Consideration is given to Policy 5 below. 12.18 The scale, form and design of the proposed development are suited to the site and, provided suitable management of materials, colours and finishes, there is no anticipated detrimental visual impact. 12.19 The split level is an acceptable way to address the steep slope on the site. The comparatively low ridge height of 5.2 metres keeps the house low in the landscape, and lower than the nearest adjacent house, ‘Ardenlea’, which is a 1.5 storey design site approximately 10 metres apart from the proposed house, gable to gable. 12.20 The house design is not traditional, nor is it akin to some of the more modern house developments in the area. However, the low impact siting means that the building should be an acceptable addition to the area as the least characterful aspects – such as the basement garage – are well screened from public view for the most part. The most visible the house will be, in terms of seeing the two levels together, is from East Street, looking across the Stoneyfield farm road. To ensure that the house does not create an unduly prominent feature in the landscape, the colours are important to allow the building to integrate acceptably into the surrounding built and natural landscape. 12.21 The building has an unusual combination of materials which, combined with the split- level form, makes the finishes and colours particularly important to ensure the building integrates acceptably into its surroundings. The proposed materials and finishes of smooth render to the basement level, cladding to the upper level walls, and corrugated profile metal sheet to the roof, are considered to be suitably in keeping with the existing character of the area, though more common to outbuildings than the majority of dwellings. The proposed cladding is not timber, but a composite boarding, in a dark- grey black. The red to the roofing material is quite muted though still a suitable contrast to the dark walls. The originally proposed white render finish to the basement level has been amended to a grey, in order to prevent the mass of the lower level of the development from being unduly prominent in long-views. This was agreed in negotiation with the applicant and the full schedule of materials, colours and finishes to the external envelope of the building will be managed by condition. 12.22 The window design and layout is varied, but is minimally visible. The proportions on the principal elevation are suitable and have strong vertical emphasis. The windows to the side and rear do not continue this, but they are generally small and do not detract from the overall form and design of the house. 12.23 The access serving the property is a partially existing track that extends from the end of the Lower Sandwick road. It has been determined in accordance with advice from CnES Technical Services (Roads) that the access and proposed parking layout is acceptable to serve the proposed house. 12.24 ‘Ardenlea’ has one visible upper floor window in the elevation facing towards the proposal site. The proposed house has two small windows at a lower level, serving a walk-in wardrobe and bedroom. The distance to the nearest neighbouring property, ‘Ardenlea’, coupled with the existing dense planting on the boundary, is such that there would be no direct overlooking between the properties. It is considered that amenity of neighbouring properties is not unduly affected. 12.25 In light of the above assessment, subject to compliance with Policy 5: Landscaping the proposal would be in compliance with Policy 4 and in turn satisfy this aspect of Policy 1. 12.26 Policy 5 – Landscape

Development proposals should relate to the specific landscape and visual characteristics of the local area, ensuring that the overall integrity of landscape character is maintained. The Western Isles Landscape Character Assessment (WI-LCA) will be taken into account in determining applications and developers should refer to Appendix 1 of this plan for a summary of this guidance.

12.27 The application site sits within the Main Settlement of Stornoway. It is at the end of the Lower Sandwick road. While the designated Landscape Character identifies it as Crofting 1, the site is on the fringes of the developed residential area of the Main Settlement. 12.28 The introduction of a new house development into an established residential area – provided appropriate materials, finishes and colours as detailed in Policy 4 – will not affect the landscape character of the area as a whole. As such, it is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy 5. 12.29 Policy 6 – Water and Wastewater

New developments will be required to adopt the principles of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) with the exception of those discharging directly to coastal waters and single house developments (where surface water can be treated by other means). Sewerage - New buildings in areas with public sewerage systems and developments of 25 houses or more will be required to connect to the public sewer unless the developer can demonstrate that there are specific technical reasons as to why the development cannot reasonably be connected to a public sewer. In such cases the development will only be permitted if the developer can demonstrate a sustainable, alternative method that will not significantly adversely impact on the environment or neighbour amenity. Private waste water systems should discharge to land. Where this is not possible, the developer must submit evidence that discharge to the water environment is acceptable to SEPA. Discharge from waste water systems direct to waters designated under EC Shellfish Directives will not be permitted. Water: - New developments in areas with public water supplies will be required to connect to the public water supply. In situations where there is no, or an inadequate, public water supply the details including the sufficiency and wholesomeness of the private water supply will require to be demonstrated.

12.30 The proposal demonstrates surface water run-off for the site being managed through an open drain, which is acceptable for a single house development. The development indicates that connection will be made to the public water supply. 12.31 The application proposes a connection to a private waste water system as opposed to the public sewer. 12.32 The policy directs that new buildings within sewered areas are required to connect to the public sewer. Only where the specific technical reasons can be demonstrated as to why the development cannot reasonably be connected to the public sewer will a suitable private system be considered. 12.33 The development site is approximately 110 metres from the nearest identified Scottish Water manhole. There are six houses between the development site and this point, at least four of which are understood to be connected to the mains system. 12.34 The applicant was invited to submit technical reasons to justify this proposal. The applicant submitted an engineer’s plan indicating a possible pipe route, two manholes and a pumping chamber together with budget cost estimate in the sum of £23,000 but no technical reasons. The requirement for a package pump to secure connection to a public sewer is not unusual for new house developments. 12.35 The assessment indicates that the connection would be unviable and unfeasible due to ‘cost estimates…and the disruption to the township by routing the main sewer along the main bitmac road’. It is not usual to have short term disruption to a public road to make a connection to a sewer and cost while part of a technical assessment does not amount to technical reasons for not connecting to the public sewer. The timescale of disruption is considered to be minimal, with the number of residents affected being small, and the duration of disruption unlikely to require more than a week for works to be undertaken. 12.36 In the absence of technical reasons to support a private system, the proposal would be in contrary to Policy 6. 12.37 Policy 7 – Flooding

The following approach will be adopted for proposals within areas at risk of flooding: (a) Areas of low to medium risk: These areas will be suitable for most development with the exception of essential civil infrastructure such as hospitals, fire stations, emergency depots etc. A flood risk assessment may be required at the discretion of the Comhairle. (b) For developments proposed within areas identified on the indicative flood risk maps published by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as being at medium or high flood risk, developers will be required to provide a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) undertaken to a competent standard, or other suitable information that demonstrates compliance with Scottish Planning policy. (c) Areas bordering areas of medium – high flood risk: a topographical survey (or a minimum of 5 spot levels referenced to Ordnance Datum) may be required to inform the need or otherwise for a FRA. … In line with national policy, flood risk assessments and studies will be used in determining the acceptability of the site and the proposed development, as well as any future flood risk implications arising from the development. Where the risk of flooding is deemed unacceptable the proposal will not be permitted. Where flood risk management measures are required, natural devices such as wetlands should be incorporated or developers should provide a justification as to why they are impracticable.

12.38 The application site lies adjacent to the medium likelihood (0.5% annual probability or 1 in 200 year) flood extent of the SEPA Flood Maps and may therefore be at medium to high risk of coastal and surface water flooding. 12.39 An approximate 1 in 200 year water level for the area is 3.4 metres Above Ordnance Datum (mAOD) (Stornoway) based on extreme still water level calculation using the Coastal Flood Boundary method. The ground level annotations on the submitted plans are derived from a local datum and are not AOD levels. Converting these to AOD, it is evident that the existing ground levels vary across the development site, but the proposed finished ground levels sit above the 3.4m level. The standard level of freeboard recommended by SEPA is 600mm and therefore finished floor levels should be a minimum of 4.0mAOD. SEPA calculate the convert local datum level to be 10.995m equating to 4.4mAOD. The proposed finished floor level shown on the plans of the proposed development is 14.65m on the living accommodation level and 11.6m at the basement level – both exceeding the 4.4mAOD freeboard level. The proposal is therefore in compliance with Policy 7. 12.40 Policy 13 - Housing

The effective land supply to deliver the housing needs of the islands for at least a five year period (as identified in the LHS Housing Needs and Demand Assessment) will be delivered through individual/private sites and those listed in Proposal H1. Proposal H1 sites will be safeguarded against uses and development that would compromise the residential function of the site. To meet any shortfall and provide for longer term supply a further range of sites are listed in Proposal H2. In addition to the identified sites, housing development may be permitted where: the development:  comprises redevelopment of land or premises, or;  is a conversion of an existing property, or;  is for use of derelict land or gap sites, or;  is of small-scale (not more than 3 dwellings) at an appropriate density; or,  it is appropriately located within the Rural Housing market area. Housing proposals should not be located adjacent to: existing or consented general industrial/storage sites (use classes 5 & 6); mineral extraction or waste management sites; LDP Economic Proposal sites; non-residential caravan sites, and renewable energy development, where the residential amenity would be compromised.

12.41 Though not within an identified housing site, the proposed house site meets the relevant criteria to be acceptable as it is of small-scale (not more than 3 dwellings) at an appropriate density.

SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE ASSESSMENT Supplementary Guidance: Standards for Car-parking and Roads Layout. 12.42 The development proposals include utilising an existing access and the provision of new parking areas to serve the proposed development. The existing access which would serve the development is taken from the end of the Lower Sandwick Road. 12.43 It is considered that the access and car parking requirements are commensurate with the type, location and scale of the development. The minimum of two parking spaces has been detailed on the proposal and site plan, and has been considered by Comhairle Technical Services (Roads) as being acceptable within the context of the development. 12.44 It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with the Supplementary Guidance: Standards for Car Parking and Roads Layout. ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 12.45 Having carried out an assessment against the provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, the proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 13 but would be contrary to the provisions of Policy 6 (Water and Wastewater) and on those grounds the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 13.1 Having carried out an assessment against the Development Plan, the Planning Authority requires to identify and consider other relevant material considerations, for and against the proposal, and assess whether these considerations warrant a departure from the Development Plan. The weight to be attached to any relevant material consideration is for the judgment of the decision-maker. SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY 13.2 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) is a material Planning Consideration. This includes policy statements from the Scottish Government. 13.3 The principal policies under-pinning Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) introduces a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development, and that planning should:  take every opportunity to create high quality places by taking a design led approach;  direct development to the ‘right places’; and  support development that is designed to a high quality which demonstrates the six qualities of a successful place. 13.4 SPP guides that the presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development should respond to economic issues; challenges and opportunities as outlined in local economic strategies; support good design; make good use of existing capacities of land, buildings and infrastructure, including supporting town centre and regeneration priorities; supporting delivery of infrastructure (including education); avoiding over-development; and protecting the amenity of new and existing development.

PLANNING HISTORY 13.5 The site has a previous Planning Permission in Principle (PPP) consent for erecting a house (Ref 11/00374). The consent was granted subject to conditions. The application was made on the basis that the proposed development would involve a connection to the public sewer.

REPRESENTATIONS 13.6 No third party representations were raised in relation to the development.

OBJECTION FROM STATUTORY CONSULTEE 13.7 SEPA has objected to the development on the basis of the proposed private foul water provision. SEPA’s policy is to resist private systems in settlements with a population greater than 2000 population equivalent. The objection of a statutory consultee is a material planning consideration and the statutory objection reflects the consideration and assessments of Policy 6 in the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. Though the developer provided a proposal with costings for a private connection, it does not amount to technical reasons that justify why a connection to the main sewer is not possible. SEPA reviewed the applicant’s submission and were not minded to alter their position based on the information submitted. 13.8 The underlying reason for SEPA’s policy position is that the perpetuation of private waste water systems has environmental implications. Further allowing private systems within main settlement areas risks establishing an undesireable precedent in areas which by virtue of their population/density have been subject to public investment in developing and subsequently maintaining a public sewerage system. SITE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES 13.9 Planning Permission in Principle was granted for a house based on a connection to the public sewer with the details to be addressed when the detailed application was submitted. The site slopes at about 30 degrees and its lower parts were subject to flood risk concerns with the resulting detailed design having living accommodation at first floor level and garage accommodation below. The site topography and flood risk concerns are such that further housing development is unlikely beyond the site. However the elevated nature of the living accommodation is such that the pumping chamber could be located higher up the site and still achieve adequate gravity to the position of the pumping chamber, thereby reducing the extent of the works indicated. The absence of likelihood of built development beyond the proposed house due to the topography and flood risk is a material consideration that lends some weight in favour of the proposal. CONCLUSION 14.1 The proposal is to erect a house, with integral garage, and to install an air source heat pump. 14.2 The proposal is within a Main Settlement and the nature of the use and built aspect of the development would not alter the character of this part of the main settlement. 14.3 The policy tests for siting, design, sustainability, flooding and housing, if appropriately conditioned as set out in the assessments above, could be satisfied. 14.4 However, the provision of a private waste water treatment system within a sewered settlement is contrary to the provisions of Policy 6 unless a technical justification can be provided to show that a connection to the public system is not feasible. 14.5 An objection from a statutory consultee, SEPA, has been received and based on that response and the Planning Service’s assessment of Policy 6, the development is considered contrary to the Development Plan. 14.6 It has been concluded that the allowance of a private waste water treatment system would set an undesirable precedent and increased potential for negative environmental impact. 14.7 Therefore by virtue of Policy 6 (Water and Wastewater) it is concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan, despite satisfying the policy tests of Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 13. 14.8 Having assessed the proposal against the relevant policies of the Development Plan, it has been concluded that the proposal would be contrary to the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan. SEPA’s standing objection is a material consideration that lends significant weight to a decision in accordance with the Development Plan. While SPP lends some support to the proposal, as does the site specific nature of the site resulting in further housing development being unlikely. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons appended to this Report. RECOMMENDATION AND REASONS 15.1 The application is recommended for refusal as it would be contrary to Policy 6: Water and Wastewater of the Development Plan and there are no material considerations which when assessed individually or collectively that carry such weight that a decision should be taken otherwise.

APPENDIX 1

PROPOSED REASONS FOR REFUSAL

Reason 1 The proposed house development, by virtue of the intention to install and utilise a private waste water system in a sewer area, has not presented sufficient justification detailing technical reasons why a connection to the public system is not possible, and would create an undesirable precedent. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policy 6: Water and Wastewater of the Outer Hebrides Local Development Plan 2012.

APPENDIX 2