DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES Local Member - Alison J. Hay PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 21.08.02 MID , KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 06.11.02

15.10.02 Reference Number: 02/01489/OUT Applicants Name: Colin Lindsay-MacDougall Application Type: Outline Application Description: Five dwellinghouses specifying layout and access Location: Soroba Road, Ardfern

(A ) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:

• Five detached dwellinghouses, specifying layout and access, involving connections to both the public sewer, and public water main.

(B) RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Members resolve to be minded to grant outline planning permission as a ‘significant departure’ to approved Development Plan policy, subject to:

1) the standard outline conditions and reasons and the conditions and reasons set out in this report; 2) the application being considered at a PAN 41 hearing in view of the representations received against the proposal; 3) the application being referred to the Public Services and Licensing Committee for consideration as a ‘significant departure’ if the Area Committee is minded to support the application; 4) any resolution to grant permission being notified to the Scottish Ministers, for them to consider whether it is appropriate that the application be ‘called in’ for their determination.

(C) DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

This is an application for a development of five houses on land subject to the operation of adopted Mid Argyll Local Plan Policy HO 11. Ardfern is specfically identified as a ‘sensitive settlement’ in the local plan, and Policy HO 11 seeks to prevent large scale or unsympathetic development which would erode the character or the landscape setting of the settlement. As a consequence of the operation of Policy HO 11, the local plan provides for housing to take place on land specifically identified by the accompanying Policy HO 12. In view of the age of the plan, the development of the only site in Ardfern so identified, is now nearing completion. Consequently, there is currently an inadequate land supply locally in terms of the government advice given in NPPG 3 and PAN 38, which advocate that the development plan process should maintain a 5 year supply of land for housebuilding.

The forthcoming Local Plan will address the release additional housing land to serve the future needs of Ardfern, but this has yet to reach Consultation Draft stage, and may take a significant length of time to reach adoption. Demand can therefore only be met in the interim by infill developments or ‘windfall’ sites within the settlement boundary, or by the approval of ‘departures’ to existing planning policy, within the surrounding area subject to the operation of Policy HO 11.

In this case there is justification for giving favourable consideration to this proposal, which seeks to address the shortfall in supply during this interim period, on the understanding firstly, that the forthcoming plan is unlikely to be prejudiced, and secondly, that the development does not give rise to unacceptable environmental impact or infrastructure constraints. Approval of the application would, however, constitute a ‘significant departure’ from the approved development plan, and in view of the number of local objections (9) and the objection from the Community Council, if Members are minded to support the application a PAN 41 Hearing would be appropriate in this case.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

(D) CONCLUSION

The application is recommended for approval as a ‘departure’ to Development Plan policy, subject to the procedural steps outlined in the recommendation above.

Angus J Gilmour Head of Development & Building Control

Author: Derek Hay Tel. 01546 604083 Contact Point: Richard Kerr Tel. 01546 604080

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 02/01489/OUT

4. No development shall be commenced until such time as a single footway has been constructed between the site access and the junction of the B8002 and Ardlarach Road, insofar as this is achievable within the existing road corridor and the boundary of the application site, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Council’s Roads Engineers

Reason: In the interests of road safety having regard to increased vehicular use of Ardlarach Road and the current lack of a segregated route for pedestrians.

5. Pursuant to condition 1(c) above, and prior to any development occurring on the site, Soroba Road shall be widened to an overall width of 6 metres over a 40 metre length of road at the north western corner of the site, in accordance with drawings to be first submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of road safety.

6. Pursuant to condition 1(c) above, the proposed access shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. G300 and shall have visibility splays of 90 metres in each direction formed from the centre line of the proposed access. Prior to work starting on site these visibility splays shall be cleared of all obstructions over one metre in height above the level of the adjoining carriageway and thereafter shall be maintained clear of all obstructions over one metre in height to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

7. Pursuant to condition 1(c) above, prior to work starting on site, the access hereby permitted shall be formed in accordance with the Council’s Highway Drawing No. G300 with the bellmouth area surfaced in dense bitumen macadam for a distance of 5 metres back from the existing carriageway edge and dropped kerbs formed or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of road safety.

8. Pursuant to condition 1(c) above, and notwithstanding the layout shown on the permitted drawings, the access road layout shall be redesigned and submitted to the Planning Authority for approval, such that it does not extend through to the south eastern boundary of the site.

Reason: To enable the implementation of a strong structural landscaped boundary to be planted along the south eastern boundary of the site in the interest of the areas visual amenity and to benefit the maintenance of the villages character.

9. Pursuant to condition 1(c) above, prior to work starting on site full details of a turning area and parking provision for 2 cars within the curtilage of each shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. The parking and turning area shall be provided prior to the occupation of each dwellinghouse.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

10. Pursuant to condition 1(a) above, none of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be more than one and a half storeys high, and shall not exceed 7.5 metres in height from ground level to ridge level.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and to ensure that the character of the village is maintained.

11. Any details pursuant to Condition 1(a) above shall include a dwellinghouse(s):

i) finished in wet dash render/smooth cement render/natural stone or a mixture of these finishes;

ii) incorporating windows with a strong vertical emphasis;

Continued

iii) a roof pitch of not less than 37 o and not greater than 42o, symmetrically pitched and finished in a good quality slate substitute or such other material as agreed

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

iv) which is predominantly rectangular shaped width traditional gable ends. Traditional “peaked” roof dormers and porches shall be encouraged.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposed dwellinghouse(s) with its surroundings.

12. Prior to the work starting on site, a landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. This landscaping plan shall include the following details:

(i) The location, type, height and number/density of trees and hedging to be planted on site, incorporating a strategic landscape strip along the two south eastern boundaries of the site and the north eastern boundary with a minimum width of 3 metres.

(ii) The location, type and canopy width of any existing trees on the site identifying those to be retained and those to be removed as a result of the development.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in order to integrate the proposal with its surroundings.

13. The strategic landscaping required by Condition 12 above shall be fully implemented, within temporary protective fencing, prior to work starting on the first dwellinghouse. The details of the temporary protective fencing shall be first submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority prior to its erection and it shall remain in place until the development is substantially completed. All other planting, seeding, turfing and other works shown on the duly approved landscaping plans shall be carried out in the first planting season following work starting on the first dwellinghouse. All of the landscaping shall be maintained for a period of 10 years with any losses to any of the landscaping for whatever reason being replaced within one planting season with a similar size and species to the trees originally required to be planted.

Reason : In order to ensure that the landscaping scheme is maintained and any failures are replaced by similar species.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION : 02/01489/OUT

A. POLICY OVERVIEW

Strathclyde Structure Plan (1995)

Policy STRAT 2 establishes a presumption against development which has an adverse impact upon natural and heritage resources which cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced (including landscape).

Policy STRAT 2A requires development which has an adverse impact upon natural and heritage resources which cannot be readily regenerated or reproduced to be justified against specific criteria.

Policy RRA 2 (d) (3) removes the presumption in favour of small scale development in the countryside where local plans have established that such a presumption should not apply.

Mid Argyll Local Plan 1985 and Second Alteration 1993

Policy HO 11 states that Ardfern is considered to be sensitive, where large scale or unsympathetic infill developments could have a detrimental effect on the existing landscape and servicing. The Council has accordingly restricted new housing development to areas identified on the Inset Map. (The site is within this Inset Map but not within the area within that map where the possibility of housing has been identified). Accordingly ….it will not grant approval for a house on greenfield sites outwith these areas other than in exceptional circumstances. Applicants will be required to demonstrate an overriding locational or operational need that makes it essential for them to have a house outwith rather than within the areas identified.

Where such a need has been demonstrated, special attention will be given to ensure that the actual location of the house creates the minimum adverse environmental impact. Regard will also be had to the principles set out in the Government’s Planning Advice Note 36 when assessing all proposals within sensitive settlements.

Policy HO 15 also states that there will be a presumption against proposals for residential development within better quality (“in bye”) agricultural land.

All proposals within these areas will be assessed using the following criteria : a) environmental impact b) locational/operational need c) economic benefit d) infrastructure and servicing implications e) sterilisation of natural resources f) alternative policies and proposals contained in the Local Plan.

B. OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

(i) Site History

None

(ii) Consultations

• Statutory Plans Officer (report dated 15.10.02) - in view of the extended timescale envisaged before the adoption of the replacement Local Plan takes place, it could be argued that if the settlement of Ardfern has no effective land supply for new housing development then this could be used as an exceptional circumstance to justify approval of this proposal as a departure to Policy HO 11. The adoption of this approach in this case is strengthened by the fact that the development of this site is consistent with the first draft working documents of the new Argyll and Bute Local Plan currently being prepared (albeit that these have yet to be released as a consultation draft). • Area Roads Manager (report dated 12.09.02) – no objections subject to conditions to ensure

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

the standard of the bellmouth, visibility splays of 90m, a new footpath to be constructed from the site access to centre of the village and road widening on the public road to 6m for a 40m length at the corner. • Senior Environmental Health Officer (report dated 13.09.02) – no observations • Scottish Water (letter dated 25.09.02) – no objections in relation to connection to the public sewer, on the basis that there is an identified current spare capacity for 9 housing units and this application is for 5. No objection in principle in relation to water supply on the grounds that there is access to a public water main. West of Archaeology (letter dated 09.10.02) – no objections. • Community Council (letter dated 26.9.02) – object to the application firstly on the grounds that it may exacerbate sewage disposal and water supply issues in the area, and secondly, in view of the road access, which is over used, dangerous, particularly for pedestrians and in a deteriorating condition. They consider that expansion of the village should not be contemplated until these infrastructure issues have been addressed.

(iii) Publicity

The proposal has both been advertised as development contrary to the Development Plan and in terms of Article 9 (Vacant Land); the period for representation expired on 28.09.02. Letters of objection have been received from the following 8 households and 1 business: B & J Condie (Curlain, Ardlarach Road), A.S. Pollock (Highfield, Ardfern), A. H. B. Taylor (Soroba House, Ardfern), D. Campbell (Soroba House, Ardfern), J. M. Wylie (Tigh an Innis, Ardlarach Road), C. Smith (Albion Lodge, Ardlarach Road), G.A. Anderson (Plot H Annieswell, Ardlarach Road ), R. Blair (Barnhill, Ardlarach Road) and J. Brailsford (Director of O-Fish-Shell Ltd, Ardfern). The points raised can be summarised as follows:

• proposal is contrary to the current development plan, particularly POL HO 11 and the protection given by this policy, given that it recognises that Ardfern is sensitive. The houses at ‘Annieswell 1’ were justified, it is argued, on the grounds that it was reasonably contained within a hollow and represented a small part of a much larger in- bye field; • should the village loose its rural aspect by a suburban sprawl, the proposal would have a detrimental effect on Ardfern as a viable self-sustained community. The fragility of the community could also be affected if Soroba Farm, through the loss of further land, becomes no longer viable; • this proposal in conjunction with ‘Annieswell 1’ will lead to a large development of over 15 houses within a concentrated area, which would be out of character with that of the village; • the current proposal on elevated land will disfigure the landscape; • if Ardfern is to be developed as a larger residential community, it must be done in a structured and meaningful manner ensuring that services and amenities are available as the development takes place; • the public road unsuitable for an increase in traffic with a blind corner adjacent to this site and a bad road junction which vehicles from this development would have to negotiate adjacent to the Primary School. At the last PAN 41 hearing for ‘Annieswell 1’ it was suggested that a 20mph speed limit be imposed and monitored on Ardlarach Road but this never happened; • the road rises from Culrain to Soroba with a blind summit beyond Soraba; • there has been deterioration in the surface of Ardlarach Road, following the development of ‘Annieswell 1’ which will be worsened by this proposal; • concern over safety of pedestrians (including children in pushchairs) having to walk on a road which, in places, has raised verges and ditches preventing escape from additional traffic – the location of Craignish Primary School at the bottom of this road intensifies the issue; • if the development is to be allowed, and 16 houses permitted in total between Annieswell 1 and 2, a safe play area should be provided; • the sewage system will be unable to cope without an adverse effect on quality of environment (both mentioned by residents and also with concern expressed by the Director of O-Fish-Shell Ltd., pointing out firstly, that the current effluent discharge is resulting in pollution of the Company’s salt water requirements and having a detrimental effect on live shellfish, and secondly, that if the small 4” diameter sewer which runs

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

through the Company’s property has to be replaced it will result in major disruption to their working practises with potential loss of income; • water pressure has fallen since development of ‘Annieswell 1‘ therefore it is likely that this development will make it suffer again; • ‘Annieswell 1’ has had permissions for subdivision, and it is likely that if this development is permitted the site may ultimately accommodate more than 5 dwellings.

Comment: The views expressed locally can largely be categorised into concerns about the adequacy of services, the impact of additional traffic, and the acceptability of the site to accommodate an extension to the village. In terms of services, it is intended that these additional five houses would be served by both mains water and sewerage. Scottish Water have indicated their agreement to this, and have stated that the existing septic tank by the shore (extended in size to accommodate ‘Annieswell 1’) has residual capacity to serve a further nine houses. The Area Roads Engineer does not object to the development on traffic grounds, subject to some improvement of the existing public road access. The acceptability of the site to accommodate development without significantly degrading the character of this defined ‘sensitive settlement’ is considered below.

C. APPLICANT’S SUPPORTING INFORMATION

In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a statement which may be summarised as follows;

• The development adjoins land allocated for housing in 1984, which has provided houses for 6 young families, of which 5 were local, and Scottish Homes have grant assisted 3 houses to date; • Local first time buyers at ‘Annieswell1’ received substantial discounts on their plot purchases, as promised at the PAN 41 Hearing for that site; • There are still first time purchasers waiting for an opportunity to buy homes but there is no land available, whilst the lack of supply inflates local house prices; • Discounts will again be made available to first time buyers, and support should be given to young families to maintain the balance of the community and to support local services; • Although the new local plan may allocate this site for development, approval will be up to 2 years away, and it is unreasonable to see housing land supply constrained in the interim. Councillors have already recognised this by recently approving two houses as departures to policy; • There are no servicing constraints which would prevent permission being granted.

D. ASSESSMENT

The Mid Argyll Local Plan (with alterations up to 1983) is the adopted Local Plan for the area. Local Plan Policy HO 11 identifies Ardfern as a ‘sensitive settlement’ within which large scale or unsympathetic infill developments should be resisted. The accompanying Policy HO12 accordingly identifies specific housing allocations to which new residential development should be restricted. In Ardfern, the HO 12 housing allocation was restricted to a 0.5 ha site on the Ardlarach Road (now known locally as ‘Annieswell 1’), which was originally envisaged as being capable of accommodating 6 houses. The outline permission for this development was given in July 2000, following a PAN 41 Hearing, due to the site being slightly larger than the allocated area. Following subsequent permitted sub-divisions of some plots, it now benefits from permissions for a total of 10 houses, of which 7 are now built. The remaining 3 plots have owners, and informal discussions are currently taking place over the design solutions for some of them.

As a consequence, there is effectively no more allocated housing land available within the village to accommodate future demand. The forthcoming Argyll & Bute Local Plan will address this, but the Consultative Draft is still some time away. Government advice in NPPG 3 ‘Housing Land’ and PAN 38 ‘Housing Land Requirements’, requires Planning Authorities to aim to ensure that a 5 year minimum supply of housing land is provided through the Development Plan process. The age of the current plan means that this requirement is not fulfilled at present, and in the meantime, housing can only be accommodated in Ardfern by

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

means of small infill developments within the POL HO 11 settlement boundary; or if the Council permits development beyond this line as a ‘departure’ to the provisions of the approved Development Plan. This site lies beyond, but immediately adjacent to, both the black line boundary which delineates the effect of POL HO 11, and the POL HO 12 housing land allocation.

It is with this background in mind that the Head of Statutory Plans has advised that exceptional circumstances to accommodate current housing need exist, which could potentially support this development being favourably considered as a ‘departure’ to the current Development Plan. Any such approval would, however, have to be consistent with all other policies and other planning aspects of the application, and if this were the case, it would also be necessary to establish that its development would not otherwise be prejudicial to the eventual outcome of the emerging Local Plan. (For example, the premature release of land in one location could prejudice the development prospects of land elsewhere, or could have consequences for land which might require to be safeguarded for other purposes).

There is an important distinction here between a proposal being premature, as opposed to prejudicial, to a forthcoming plan. Prematurity is not a reason in itself for refusing planning permission, if there are justifiable reasons, including the age of the existing plan, for not determining an application in accordance with the provisions of that plan. Only in circumstances where a proposal submitted in advance of an impending replacement plan is likely to prejudice the policies and proposals reasonably expected to be included in that plan, ought such a development to be refused on the grounds that it pre-empts a revision of development plan policy.

Sections 25 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 require planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is therefore necessary first to have regard to adopted development plan policy as expressed in the Mid Argyll Kintyre and Islay Local Plan, and then to consider the implications of other material considerations. These would include the age of the adopted plan, the lack of current housing land supply to meet the requirements of NPPG 3, the implications of an approval for the proposal for the forthcoming local plan, the suitability of the site in terms of environmental, servicing and other local considerations, and the views of consultees and third parties.

Consequently, whilst it is acknowledged that the current local plan is becoming outdated, and that allocated housing land exhausted, and although there is reasonable justification for considering this site for development in order to maintain an interim housing land supply until the new local plan is available, it is also necessary to assess this proposal in terms of other policies and considerations, including those referred to in Policy HO 15.

Environmental impact

Ardfern is identified in the local plan as a ‘sensitive settlement’ to which regard must be had in considering departures beyond the area identified by Policy HO 11. Consequently, consideration must be given to the effect of the proposal upon both landscape and the setting of the settlement.

Ardfern has developed in an incremental haphazard arrangement, principally along the shore road, and to a lesser extent, and latterly, along the Ardlarach Road, as well as within well screened and wooded hill slopes facing the shore. This haphazard arrangement forms part of its character, and part of the reason for it being identified as a ‘sensitive settlement’ by the local plan. The original settlement has recently been expanded by development on allocated land at Ardlarach Road (‘Annieswell 1’), which is immediately adjacent to this site.

The proposal represents an extension of ‘Annieswell 1’, in that it continues the two house deep development form around the corner and up to the farmstead at Soroba, which represents the current natural limit of development. The proposal (5 houses) is of such a scale that it can reasonably be considered as an appropriate interim housing land supply until such time as the forthcoming Argyll & Bute Local Plan is produced. Although this has yet to be released as a Consultation Draft, the Head of Statutory Plans has confirmed that the development of this site is consistent with the first draft working documents of the plan in

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

preparation. Consequently, it is not expected that the proposal would be prejudicial to the provisions of the forthcoming plan.

Unlike ‘Annieswell 1’, this site is somewhat more elevated and conspicuous than the land recently developed, and as such, it would not lend itself to an estate style of development. The suggested haphazard arrangement of the proposed five houses, and the limiting of three houses to the road frontage of the site, will help to keep the development at an appropriate density for the site in question. I do not consider that sub-division of the plots to accommodate smaller houses (as happened at ‘Annieswell 1’, and the prospect of which has also been raised by third parties in the case of this proposal) would be appropriate in this case, as this elevated site is more conspicuous and more intensive development would have a disproportionately more significant impact upon the setting and the character of the extended village. If however, permission is indeed granted, any subsequent application would, of course, need to be considered on its merits at that time.

If Members agree with my recommendation in respect of application 02/01480/OUT elsewhere on the agenda (refusal of a single dwelling on land adjacent to Albion Lodge), an important green wedge vital to the character of the village will be maintained. In such circumstances, I am confident that the development of these five dwellings as an expansion of ‘Anniewell 1’ up the Soroba Road could take place without significantly altering the character of the village. Whilst it is recognised that the development will progress up the hill of Soroba Road, with a depth of site varying from 42m to 76m, the development will continue to relate to the road, will be fairly low density, and will not be readily apparent from most parts of the village. It will be development, which will affect the extent of the of the village, but not its fundamental character.

For approval to be given, I consider however, that a strong landscaped screen would need to be planted along the south eastern boundary to assist in assimilating the development into the landscape, and preventing any appearance of estate type development. If developed in this form, I consider that the proposal can justified by the need to secure an appropriate site adjacent to the village, in order to assist in the provision of an appropriate housing land supply for Ardfern for the next 5 years as advocated by NPPG 3.

Locational/operational need

None advanced in support of this proposal.

Economic benefit

None other than that associated with construction.

Infrastructure and servicing implications

There are no identified constraints in terms of either access, water supply or sewerage capacity. Scottish Water has not raised objections in respect of either of the latter as adopted connections are practicable. The Area Roads Engineer has not objected to the proposal subject to appropriate junction arrangements for the site access and improvements to the bend opposite Soroba Cottage, which are achievable within the application site. Whilst concerns have been expressed by members of the public concerning traffic levels on Ardlarach Road, and the suitability of the junction by the Primary School to cope with additional traffic, the incremental increase in the volume of traffic associated with five additional dwellings is not considered to be significant.

Sterilisation of natural resources

None

Alternative policies and proposals contained in the Local Plan

None other than those referred to above.

E. REASONED DEPARTURE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPROVED

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The proposal relates to the development of land which is subject to Policy HO 11 of the adopted local plan for the area and, as a consequence is subject to the effect of Policy RRA 2 (d) (3) of the Structure Plan. The former seeks to resist unsympathetic large scale or infill development which would erode the character of this defined ‘sensitive settlement’ whilst the latter removes the normal presumption in favour of small scale development in the countryside where a local plan has established that such a presumption ought not to apply.

The development of the accompanying housing land allocation identified by Policy HO 12 has been substantially completed, and in view of the age of the plan, there is no currently available 5 year housing land supply as advocated by the government in NPPG 3 and PAN 38. There is therefore justification for considering the proposal favourably, on the understanding that it is an appropriate site for development adjacent to the existing village, which is to be developed in a low density manner sympathetic to existing development forms, which does not prejudice proposals reasonably expected to be included in the forthcoming Argyll and Bute Local Plan, and which does not give rise to an adverse environmental impact or infrastructure constraints.

F. NEED FOR PAN 41 HEARING

The Craignish Community Council have raised objections to the proposal, as have a significant number of local residents (9). As approval of the development would constitute a ‘significant departure’ to the provisions of the adopted development plan, it would be appropriate to afford these interests an opportunity to raise their concerns at a PAN 41 Hearing before a decision is made on the acceptability or otherwise of the proposal.

G. OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES

The Area Committee has delegated powers to refuse the application in line with adopted development plan policy. In the event that, following the PAN 41 Hearing, Members are minded to support this application, as a potential ‘significant departure’ the application would require to be referred to the Public Services and Licensing Committee to make a final decision on behalf of the Council. In the event of their support, the application would also require to be notified to the Scottish Ministers as a ‘significant departure’ under the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997, in order to afford an opportunity for consideration to be given as to whether it is necessary for the application to be ‘called in’ by the Scottish Ministers for their own determination.

F:\MODERNGOV\DATA\PUBLISHED\INTRANET\C00000199\M00000971\AI00006666\SOROBAROADARDFERN02014890.DOC