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 2013 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning Permission in Principle ______

Reference No: 17/02438/PP

Planning Hierarchy: Local Development

Applicant: Mr Graham MacQueen

Proposal: Erection of Recreational Hut (Retrospective)

Site Address: Land Approximately 830 Metres Northeast of Atlantic Bridge, Clachan Seil ______

DECISION ROUTE

Local Government Scotland Act 1973 ______

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

 Erection of Recreational Hut  Engineering Works consisting of the formation of areas of hardstanding and access paths  Erection of timber ‘garden shed’

(ii) Other Operations

 Installation of a private water supply to an external standpipe

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

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

No history relevant to this particular site. ______

(D) CONSULTATIONS:

Development Policy Unit Memo dated 03/11/17 advising that the LDP includes specific provisions setting out a spatial strategy relating to tourism accommodation and recreational facilities and, in the absence of any specific policy relating to huts, it is these which provide an appropriate planning policy framework for assessment at huts at this time. They further advise that the Council is at the Main Issues Report stage of the next LDP which proposes a new approach to countryside development together with a more positive, simple policy framework for tourism development to come forward flexibly in the countryside whilst safeguarding the valued environmental resources of our area. The Main Issues Report is not considered to be a strong material consideration given that it is at an early stage of consultation and as such does not represent the “settled view” of the Council.

Biodiversity Officer Letter dated 19/10/17 No objection subject to conditions but advising that there are concerns that the large size of the application site appears disproportionate to the small size of the proposed hut and recommends that this is reviewed in line with the area that the hut currently occupies in order to protect the sensitive nature of the site. The response recommends that no further building incursion or any formalised access is allowed into the site to maintain its integrity and, as there is no sea to shore access, the applicant maintains a watching brief for Otter activity and follows a protocol to avoid disturbing this European Protected Species if sighted.

Kilmelford Community Council Letter dated 14/10/17 advising that they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions being imposed on the grant of planning permission restricting use of the development to Mr MacQueen and his family and restricting any further development on the site.

Building Standards E-mail dated 7th November confirming that there would be an exemption from requirement for a building warrant provided that: i) the building floor area (measured internally) does not exceed 30sqm, ii) that any gallery within it does not exceed 8sqm, and iii) the building is only used for shelter or sleeping in connection with recreation (i.e. a “bothy”). It is however also noted that the details accompanying the application only provide external measurement of the building (6.12m x 5.12m) which would suggest that the exemption from warrant would therefore appear to be borderline dependent on the thickness of the walls and could only be confirmed following provision of accurate internal dimensions. It is also noted that any proposal to install wastewater drainage (sanitary facilities) would require a warrant.

______

(E) PUBLICITY:

The proposal has been advertised in terms of Regulation 20 procedures, closing date 19/10/17. ______

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

133 Representations have been received regarding the proposed development comprising 17 objections and 116 expressions of support.

OBJECTION

Ian Binnie, Balvicar, Seil (01/10/17) Dr Uta Binnie, Balvicar, Seil (01/10/17) Dr Christine Moinard, 1 Cnoc A' Challtuinn, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR (02/10/17) Stevie Jarron (by e-mail 02/10/17) Mr Nick Bowles, 2 Cnoc Beag, Balvicar, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TH (04/10/17) Mr Adam Jarron, Tigh-Air-Oisean, Cnoc A' Challtuinn, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TR (02/10/17) Mr Bill McDicken, Tigh Na Craig, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TJ (04/10/17) Gerald Foster, Achnaclach Cottage, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TL (06/10/17) Julian Taylor (by e-mail) 10/10/17 Lorraine Reynolds (by e-mail 12/10/17) HMM Blakeney, Reay Cottage, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TL (16/10/17) Mr Brian Marden (by e-mail 17/10/17) Carol Collis (by e-mail 17/10/17) Rose Wand (by e-mail 18/10/17) Marion MacLean (by e-mail 13/10/17) David Pender (by e-mail 13/10/17) Martin Haddlington, An Fhuaran, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TL (19/10/17)

Summary of issues raised

 Anger at what is alleged to be the blatant and cynical corruption of the planning process that the build represents. It is further alleged that the applicant has knowingly from the start played the planning process by clearing and building on the site without permission to be able to feign ignorance of the need for planning consent and apply retrospectively and pay the token fine. There need to be questions asked of what advice Digital Land Surveys Ltd gave their client and whether they colluded in avoiding planning permission or were ignored when it was pointed out.

It would appear that considerable structural, architectural and engineering input were provided in the construction of the building and it is hard to believe that no one approached Planning during this build period for any sort of consultation or advice which would suggest that the owner had always intended to go down the route of retrospective planning permission.

The building has been built almost to the exact specifications of a recreational hut set out in legislation which suggests they are aware of the regulations surrounding recreational huts and cannot feign innocence that they did not realise they should have planning permission and are attempting to get retrospective permission, despite knowing they needed it to begin with, because they plan to get around the potential outcry over the environmental impact.

Comment: The comments are noted.

 Ignorance is not a defence, especially when the plans show a date of August 2016.

Comment: The comment is noted.

 The Council Planning Team were informed repeatedly of the build, from the first clearing of the site back in May throughout its build process over the summer, but somehow failed to intervene in time to prevent what we have now; to all intents and purposes a completed house. Questions need to be answered as to how much further the build continued after the applicant was told to stop building, the advice that was given to them at the time and any contact the applicant had with Planning Officers (past and present) at the Council in the year running up to the present time on this build. The choices here are between incompetence and collusion.

Comment: The Planning Service opened an appropriate investigation when first advised of the unauthorised development and which resulted in the submission of the current planning application. The planning enforcement case remains open until such time as the application is determined and, if the application is refused, will need to consider the expediency of any formal planning enforcement action that might be taken. The applicant has had no contact with Planning Officers regarding this site, or development, in the preceding year.

 Steven Holston of SNH advised that the site hadn’t been visited by the Council Officer as deemed too far away.

Comment: A visit to the site has been undertaken by staff from the Planning Service.

 The build is a total disregard and humiliation of the Planning Process. If you pass this house, what is there to stop anyone else doing exactly the same? What is the point of planning?

Comment: The proposal is for a recreational hut, not a dwellinghouse and is fully considered against the terms of the Local Development Plan (LDP) in Appendix A.

 The structure has not had the benefit of normal planning considerations about its impact on the surrounding area and the environment and the retrospective application should be refused until open and transparent impact assessments have been completed and I hope Argyll and Bute Council responds strongly to this breach of planning. By not refusing this application, precedent would be set for other developers to build on remote land out of public sight under similar terms.

Comment: The application is fully considered against the relevant policies and guidance of the LDP in Appendix A of this report. The proposal is considered contrary to the LDP and is being recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in this report.

 How can a planning application have no plan of the building itself.

Comment: In this instance, as the building has already been constructed, dimensioned photographs of the structure were submitted to the Planning Authority in support of the retrospective planning application. However, the Planning Authority has requested scaled elevational drawings be submitted to accompany the application. . The Planning Service has contacted the Building Standards Unit to ascertain if a Building Warrant is required for the building.

 The area north of Clachan Bridge is (was) truly pristine with no buildings from the bridge to the sea. Ardencaple Farm owns most of that ground on the east side of the Sound facing the subject application. If building of ‘recreational huts’ is to be allowed along that western shoreline we shall likewise build some on the opposite shore. This area is an area of real outstanding beauty, if building is allowed here it will be an extremely serious precedent.

 Seil Island has been at loggerheads with Scottish Water for years on the build and performance of sewage treatment on the island and here is a house built with no sewage treatment facilities. Has SEPA and Scottish Water been informed of this build? The addition of another house with untreated sewage to the Clachan and Seil Sound system, so near to two areas of Shellfish Waters, and during this extremely sensitive period of sewage treatment negotiations, is hugely insulting to the people of Seil. Comment: The application is seeking retrospective permission not for a dwellinghouse but for a recreational hut with no foul drainage proposed negating the need for consultation with SEPA or Scottish Water.

 The proposal is contrary to current planning policy, it is not infill, rounding off, redevelopment or change of use.

 From a practical point, the shingle bar at the north end of Clachan Sound restricts access at certain states of the tide. Serious study of tidal flow, tide height, times etc. are essential even for kayaks drawing just a few inches. Anything with an outboard would be constrained considerably more, making a ‘day trip’ (from Oban) more difficult to organise than it sounds. It also seems unusual to keep one’s kayaking gear a ‘boat journey’ away, will there be no kayaking anywhere else? – Whilst the idea of a ‘recreational hut’ may be appealing, this site on Clachan Sound is not the place.

Comment: These comments are noted.

 The site has many protections, not limited to local planning requirements within ‘Countryside Zone – Policy LDP DM 1’. The site is less than 100 metres from an Otter Holt and from the regular nest site of ravens and directly opposite a long established heronry.

Comment: The Council’s Biodiversity Officer was consulted on the proposal advising that, should retrospective planning permission be granted, the applicant retain a watching brief for Otter.

 The site is within the Firth of Lorn Marine Conservation Area, any modification to the coastline should have had prior approval for the access slipway the applicant cut using a bulldozer. It is also within a Marine Protected Area and a Special Area of Conservation. Have SNH been informed and what is their reply.

Comment: The applicant maintains that there has been no engineering works undertaken on site, merely smoothing of an existing pathway to facilitate use by wheelchair users and has submitted a Structural Engineers Report testifying to this. The engineering operations are discussed further in Appendix A of this report. The proposal is below the threshold for consultation with SNH.

 The development is not just the building but the substantial amount of engineered areas, which have fundamentally changed the unique character of this section of wild uninhabited coastline.

Comment: The applicant maintains that there has been no engineering works undertaken on site, merely smoothing of an existing pathway to facilitate use by wheelchair users.

 The woodland on the site was chain sawed down between April and June, this is prime breeding/nesting time for birds and I would bet no checks were made as to whether the trees felled had nests with eggs or young in them.

The trees are slow growing ash, oak, hazel and birch, perfect for bat roosts but I bet the same lack of due diligence was shown concerning these heavily protected endangered species. The woodland itself is recorded as having multiple woodland designations and SNH should be notified of the destruction of the trees there without survey or permission which alone may be an offence.

Comment: The Council’s Biodiversity Officer was consulted on the proposal and raised no comments regarding Bats. The woodland surrounding the site is not protected under Planning Legislation but is Ancient Woodland protected by SNH.

 Non-native trees are being planted – they are in the middle of a native woodland area – why on earth would someone want to damage such an area with non-native species?

Comment: Planning permission is not required for the planting of trees.

 The site is of outstanding natural beauty, due in part to its undeveloped nature. The former slate workings there have all but been taken back by nature and are an excellent brownfield site for invertebrates, mosses and liverworts, all of which have been bulldozed to clear the site.

Comment: These comments are noted.

 The build represents the slow, relentless creep of urban smothering of wild areas. If the client built this to get closer to nature, destroying it, pouring concrete on it and building a house on it is a very strange way of celebrating it.

Comment: These comments are noted, however the application is for a recreational hut, not a dwellinghouse.

 The features of the recreational hut, including the large viewing windows, would suggest extended occupancy with the potential for sewage and water requirements in the future.

Comment: The application is seeking retrospective permission for a recreational hut and will is assessed as such in Appendix A of this report.

SUPPORT

Rachael MacLean (by e-mail) 10/10/17 Morven MacQueen (by e-mail 16/10/17) Jean Campbell, Dalanasaig, Clachan Seil, By Oban, PA34 4TJ (18/10/17) Peigi MacInnes, 5 Lister Place, Stornoway, Isle of Lewis, HS1 2NE (12/10/17) Nicholas Carr (by e-mail) 12/10/17 Robin MacQueen, Innischonain House, Tarbet, Arrochar, G83 7DD (19/10/17) Grace King (by e-mail 19/10/17) Mr R Wilson (by e-mail 13/10/17) Gill Petrie (by e-mail 13/10/17) Rory Mills (by e-mail 13/10/17) Linus Eckhard (by e-mail 13/10/17) Anne Stewart (by e-mail 13/10/17) Isa Rao (by e-mail 13/10/17) Susan Scott (by e-mail 13/10/17) Diane Dalgetty (by e-mail 13/10/17) Coinneach MacLeod (by e-mail 13/10/17) Lucie Giles (by e-mail 13/10/17) Marion MacDonald (by e-mail 13/10/17) Miss Mary Freer, Hillbrae, Ellenabeich, Isle of Seil, PA34 4RF (28/10/17) Nick Hunter, Oban Seil Farm, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TN (18/10/17) Mr Alasdair Johnston, Carageen, Scarinish, Isle of Tiree, PA77 6UH (27/10/17) Mr Richard Toogood, Forest Hill, Connel, Oban, PA37 1PT (26/10/17) Jayne MacQueen (by e-mail 13/10/17) Marie Heitmann (by e-mail 13/10/17) Amy MacAulay (by e-mail 13/10/17) Dan Twist (by e-mail 13/10/17) Paul Duke (by e-mail 13/10/17) Isabelle Smith (by e-mail 16/10/17) Donald Campbell, Dalanasaig, Clachan Seil, PA34 4TJ (19/10/17) Katrina Inkster (by e-mail 18/10/17) Andrew MacDowall, 24 Hazeldean Crescent, Oban, PA34 5JT (17/10/17) Cheryl Woods, 18 Longsdale Crescent, Oban, PA34 5JP (17/10/17) Isla McCulloch (by e-mail 11/10/17) Marjie Thornton, Flat 1 Laroch House, Loanfern, Ballachulish PH49 4JE (17/10/17) Andy Thornton, Flat 1 Laroch House, Loanfern, Ballachulish, PH49 4JE (17/10/17) Mr David Fraser (by e-mail 17/10/17) Robin MacLean (by e-mail 17/10/17) Ronald Hetherington (by e-mail 19/10/17) J. Robertson, Cnoc Ard Balvicar, By Oban, PA34 4RA (23/10/17) J.C. Henderson, Faolin House, Morvern, PA80 5XU (23/10/17) Philip Henderson Faolin House, Morvern, PA80 5XU (23/10/17) Peter JM Connelly, 8 Balvicar, Isle of Seil, PA34 4TF (23/10/17) Jessie Robertson, Cnoc Ard, Balvicar, by Oban, PA34 4RA (23/10/17) Elaine Rodger, 5 Cnocbeag, Balvicar, Seil PA34 4TH (23/10/17) Iain Rodger, 5 Cnocbeag, Balvicar, Seil, PA34 4TH (23/10/17) Alma Rodger, 5 Cnocbeag, Balvicar, Seil, PA34 4TH (23/10/17) Michael Fraser, 150 A Chemin Des Raches, Chalet Les Corblette, 74110 Morzine France (26/10/17) Miss Hazel Kelso, 8 Rhuvaal Road, Oban, PA34 4BT (25/10/17) Chaya Patel, 51 Crecy Court, 6 Hotspur Street, Kennington, SE11 6BS (16/10/17) Calum MacPhee (by e-mail 16/10/17) Keith MacLean, Cuan Cottage, Isle of Seil (16/10/17) Heather MacLean, Cuan Cottage, Cuan Ferry, Isle of Seil, PA34 4RB (16/10/17) Peter MacQueen (by e-mail 16/10/17) Leo Freitas (by e-mail 17/10/17) Jackie Kersley (by e-mail 26/10/17) Callum Ross McCulloch (by e-mail 11/10/17) Holly Ritchie (by e-mail 23/10/17) Ms Sandra Stewart, 18 Appin Place, Aberfeldy, PH15 2AH (24/10/17) Mr Graham Campbell, Flat A, 12 Glencruitten Drive, Oban, PA34 4EB (26/10/17) Mr Henry Hiscock, Craobh Mhor, Clachan Seil, Isle of Seil, PA34 4QZ (27/10/17) Lea Gaydon, 150 A Chemin Des Raches, Chalet Les Corblette, 74110 Morzine, France Janet Dalitz (by e-mail 23/10/17) Sarah Nicholson (by e-mail 16/10/17) Mr Joseph Mountford-Smith (by e-mail 16/10/17) Louise Mckechnie (by e-mail 17/10/17) Valerie Macarthur, Lynn House, Ganavan Road, Oban, PA34 5TU (16/10/17) Joan Scott (by e-mail 17/10/17) Georgina Iwamoto (by e-mail 17/10/17) Kerr Newbigging, Innisfree, Glencruitten, Oban, PA34 4QB (25/10/17) G. MacIntyre, Innisfree, Glencruitten, Oban, PA34 4QB (25/10/17) Nicola MacIntyre, Innisfree, Glencruitten, Oban, PA34 4QB (25/10/17) Robert MacIntyre, Innisfree, Glencruitten, Oban, PA34 4QB (25/10/17) D.A. MacIntyre, Innisfree, Glencruitten, Oban, PA34 4QB (25/10/17) C. MacIntyre, Innisfree, Glencruitten, Oban, PA34 4QB (25/10/17) Mr Douglas Wilson, Inverlussa, Lochdon Isle of Mull, PA65 6BD (25/10/17) Claire MacQueen (by e-mail 11/10/17) Barry G Butler (by e-mail 12/10/17) Madam Hui H Ng (by e-mail 12/10/17) Innes MacLeod (by e-mail 12/10/17) Linda Fraser, Willow Cottage, Mossfield Avenue, Oban, PA34 4EL (23/10/17) Emily Mann (by e-mail 23/10/17) Carol Hetherington (by e-mail 23/10/17) Helen MacInnes, Ceannard, Bornish, South Uist, HS8 5SA (23/10/17) Mr Frank Walton, Mossilee, Rowan Road, Oban, PA34 5TY (24/10/17) Terence Finnegan (by e-mail 25/10/17) Kevin McInnes (by e-mail 25/10/17) Eileen Sinclair (by e-mail 19/10/17) Nicola Morgan (by e-mail 26/10/17) Mr Donald Scott (by e-mail 16/10/17) Mr Dugald Maclachlan, 2 Kirk Terrace, Craignure, Isle of Mull, PA65 6AZ (25/10/17) EMR MacKinnon, 4 Benmore View, North Connel, PA37 1SN (18/10/17) Alexander MacKinnon, 4 Benmore View, North Connel, PA37 1SN (18/10/17) Annie Johnstone (by e-mail 18/10/17) Mrs Irene Kelso, 1 Ben Cruachan View, Oban, PA34 4LY (23/10/17) Mrs Sandra Robertson, 2/1 5 Kenley Road, Renfrew,PA4 8FE (25/10/17) Mrs Jeanne Pawson, 15 Ellenabeich, Isle of Seil, PA34 4RQ (27/10/17) Oban Disability Forum (by e-mail 15/10/17) Neil MacKay, Oakdene, Deanery Brae, Oban, PA34 5JG (27/10/17) Mark MacQueen (by e-mail 26/10/17) Robbie MacKinnon, The Old Manse, Dunuaran Road, Oban, PA34 4ND (26/10/17) Mr Chris Brett, Tigh na Collie, North Connel, PA37 1RF (02/11/17) Mrs Poppy Susan Baillie, The Neuk, Connel, PA37 1PJ (01/11/17) Christine MacKenzie, 38 Campsie Drive, Milngavie, G62 8HY (30/10/17) Marion MacLean (by e-mail 12/10/17) Rose Wands (by e-mail 18/10/17) Robin A. MacQueen (by e-mail 27/10/17) David Pender (by e-mail 12/10/17) Mairi Smith (by e-mail 12/10/17) Nicky MacIver Forbes, 15 Holm Farm Road, Inverness, IV2 6BE (03/11/17) Neil Campbell, 28 Balivanich, Isle of Benbecula, Outer Hebrides, HS7 5LA (12/10/17) The Hon Michael Shaw, Kilbrandon Farm, Balvicar, PA34 4RA (06/11/17) Rhona Campbell, 12A Breadalbane Street, Oban, PA34 5NZ (06/11/17) Donnie MacPhee, 12A Breadalbane Street, Oban, PA34 5NZ (06/11/17) Vivienne MacArthur (by e-mail 03/11/17) Abbie Logan (by e-mail 07/11/17)

Summary of issues raised

 The hut demonstrates an exceptional circumstance providing a safe place accessed by the sea where the MacQueen family, who have health problems, can enjoy the peace and quiet enhancing their quality of life.  The impact on the environment of the hut and its occasional use by the MacQueen family will be far less than the boat owners and canoeists who use the sound at present.  The hut blends well into the landscape and cannot be seen from the bridge only being visible for 85 metres of Clachan Sound only really accessible by boat with access by land very difficult and will not affect the visual amenity, other properties or tourism.  There are many beautiful areas around our coast. What makes Clachan Sound unique is due to the naturally gently sloping access to the shore at any state of the tide in very sheltered waters making this site entirely fit for disabled access.  There are other constructions on the Isle of Seil constructed without planning permission or building warrants which Argyll and Bute Council should attend to having more impact than this small development.  The hut is for recreational use, is wheelchair accessible and has minimal visual or environmental impact with no intention of it being used as permanent residential accommodation.  The hut is erected on the remains of an abandoned slate quarry which would not have been a place of beauty when it was in operation, I fail to understand the furore caused by this construction which is just reusing a plot of land which is not unspoiled virgin land.  With the hut being disabled friendly, in the best place for disabled access, it should be commended as offering a great resource for those to enjoy the great outdoors of our area and Mr MacQueen, in the last three months, has taken no fewer than 13 individuals to the site who would have otherwise been excluded due to mobility/health.  The applicant has supported, and continues to support, many local organisations and has a proven record of helping the elderly and disabled going back many years.  Argyll and Bute’s ethos is to ‘realise our potential together’ so let’s keep this alive and give permission to this fabulous recreational hut.  There was someone living on the site for 5 years who fuelled a stove by cutting surrounding trees.  Any fears that the hut will lead to ‘ribbon’ development must be unfounded and fanciful.  NPF 3 & SPP 2014 introduced the concept of hutting and recreational use and the planning application should be treated under the parameters of these legislative frameworks furthermore landowners and estates welcome the idea of hutting.  The wider site is circa 2.9 acres and could support livestock; if use as a smallholding there would be a permitted development rights to build an agricultural shed up to 450 square metres with only notification requiring to be served on the Council. The hut will be less invasive than that of an agricultural small holding and should be treated as a positive development for the area.  Whilst remarkable, the area of coastline is not unique, but characteristic of the west coast of Scotland.

Comment: These expressions of support are noted. The application is fully assessed against the terms of the LDP in Appendix A of this report.

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 supporting statement: Yes

The applicant submitted the following statement in support of the application which is summarised as follows.

“The project was not hidden away and was discussed with a number of local residents. A building contractor advised that planning permission was not required as it was permitted development and should it have been known that permission was required, it would have been applied for.

A 60 square metre encampment was replaced with the 28 square metre hut which is a simple timber clad structure with a metal roof and has been constructed in such a manner to allow recreational use only. I am primary carer to my wife, mother and brother each of whom have their own challenges and to suggest that four people, with all of their needs, could move to a 28 square metre hut with no services or access is absurd.

The project does not propose any water or drainage arrangements as the hut is not for residential purposes.

There has been someone living on site full time for 5 years without any effect on the local wildlife and occasional recreational use of the hut has had no effect whatsoever on the wildlife in this area. Sighting of otter remains unchanged with seals frequently sighted and the Heronry closer to the Clachan Bridge than it is to the hut with the heron population unchanged. Passing boats, walkers, day trippers etc. disturb the wildlife more than a passive hut.

A number of trees were cut down to permit path reinstatement and construction of the hut. The previous 5 year resident was seen on a daily basis cutting trees to fuel his stove. Grisilinia were planted sourced from a UK garden centre and are non-invasive for screening and can be easily removed if required. If permission was to be granted a landscaping condition would be expected.

Up until the beginning of the 20th century this was an industrial site with evidence of the quarry works everywhere and will remain forever.

There has never been a bulldozer on site.

The situation at Glenalbyn Quarry makes any form of urbanisation virtually impossible, there are no roads and none of the necessary infrastructure with costs to install these prohibitive.

The site is not unspoilt being a disused quarry and utilised for five years by a previous resident who made it into an encampment. Occasional recreational use of the hut will not spoil the area with the hut sitting comfortably in the environment barely visible to passing kayakers and walkers and not visible from the Clachan Bridge”.

(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. The site is located within the countryside zone. LDP 3 – Supporting the Protection Conservation and Enhancement of our Environment LDP 4 – Supporting the Sustainable Development of our Coastal Zone LDP 9 – Development Setting, Layout and Design

Supplementary Guidance

SG 2 – Sustainable Siting and Design Principles SG LDP ENV 2 – Development Impact on European Sites SG LDP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Trees/Woodland SG LDP ENV 13 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality (APQs) SG LDP ACE 1 – Area Capacity Evaluation SG LDP REC/COM 1 – Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities SG LDP CST 1 – Coastal Development

(i) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular 3/2013.

Argyll and Bute Sustainable Design Guidance, 2006 Scottish Planning Policy (SPP), 2014 SNH Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde 1996 Consultee Responses Third Party Representations ______

(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: Yes

As the application is being recommended for refusal, contrary to a significant level of public support, it is recommended that a discretionary hearing be held. 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.

133 representations have been received regarding the proposed development, 17 objections and 116 expressions of support.

Given the significant interest in the application, with many from local addresses, this level of interest in the application is considered to be of significance in the context of the community with a broad range of issues raised. It is therefore considered that there would be benefit in the matter being addressed by means of a discretionary local hearing which would afford Members an opportunity to visit the site, receive further representations and to ask questions prior to the application being determined. ______

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

Section 79 of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014 requires that Local Plans should set out a spatial strategy which, where appropriate, sets out policies and proposals for leisure accommodation, such as holiday units, caravans, and huts.

The SPP Glossary defines a hut as:

‘A simple building used intermittently as recreational accommodation (i.e.not a principal residence); having an internal floor area of no more than 30m2 ; constructed from low impact materials; generally not connected to mains water, electricity or sewerage; and built in such a way that it is removable with little or no trace at the end of its life. Huts may be built singly or in groups.’

SG LDP REC/COM 1 recognises that sport, recreational and community facilities are essential to the quality of life, health and well-being of both local communities and visitors to Argyll and Bute and aims to promote the creation of recreation facilities whilst safeguarding areas of valued open space from being lost to new development.

Whilst SG LDP REC/COM 1 does not explicitly include a reference to the term ‘hut’ the Council considers that this SG does make provision for leisure and recreational accommodation as required by SPP in terms of promoting rural development including the provision of ‘huts’ of appropriate scales and design and in acceptable locations in accordance with the locational strategy policies of the LDP.

The development site does not present any opportunities for small scale development on an appropriate infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of building basis as required by Policy LDP DM 1 and accordingly consideration must be given as to whether or not the development constitutes an exceptional case and is underpinned by an area capacity evaluation (ACE).

SG LDP ACE 1 states that “The ‘exceptional case’ required to justify carrying out of an ACE is, in all circumstances, either; the demonstration of a locational and/or operational need tied to a precise location which is agreed with and acceptable to the Planning Authority, or; demonstration of an overriding economic or community benefit which outweighs other policies of the Local Development Plan and is agreed with and acceptable to the Planning Authority”. In order for a development to qualify as an ‘exceptional case’ the following principles can be applied:

• Exceptional cases should be fairly rare occurrences and should not become a matter of routine. • Exceptional cases should be supported with a business development plan/reasoned statement of justification. • Specific locational requirement – i.e. if it’s not there, then it can’t happen anywhere else. • Or that it directly supports an existing business whose continued operation would be jeopardised without the proposed development.

Notwithstanding the above, whilst the proposed building has an internal floor area not exceeding 30 square metres it is considered to be a relatively substantial building containing a two storey element provided for by a steeply sloping monopitch roof and the inclusion of a mezzanine floor at first floor level with high level windows to the rear designed to serve the inserted gallery floor. The building is not capable of being transported as a single unit (particularly given the lack of any road access to the site) and it is considered that its removal would require wholescale demolition/dismantling of the building.

The building has been erected upon an extensive area of what appears to be newly formed hardstanding comprising an engineering operation requiring planning permission. Should the alleged ‘hut’ be removed from the site it would leave behind clear evidence of development within this fragile and undeveloped landscape.

In addition, the site also accommodates a small timber shed which, although, subservient to the scale and design of the main building would likely require to be dismantled in order to remove it from the site.

The provisions of SG LDP REC/COM 1 would suggest that the development would be better suited to a rural location within a designated Rural Opportunity Area (ROA). The ROAs have been mapped specifically with a view to identifying areas within which there is a general capacity to successfully absorb small scale development, including open countryside locations, where appropriate forms of small scale development will be in tune with the landscape character and development pattern.

In addition, the site was historically used as a slate quarry but this use has long since ceased. The landscape has naturally regenerated to such an extent that it is now considered that the introduction of the proposed recreational building, the ancillary ‘garden shed’ and the substantial engineering operations consisting of a boat landing area, an area of hardstanding and access paths is materially harmful to the naturally regenerated and undeveloped nature of the site and its wild characteristics. The setting of the development within the wider landscape constitutes a visually incongruous break within an extensive area of deciduous woodland. This results in a strident and alien geometrical built form representing an undesirable sporadic development within the countryside to the detriment of the existing undeveloped settlement pattern and to the unspoilt, undeveloped and largely natural character of the landscape. This gives rise to a significant adverse impact on the Knapdale/Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality. In the absence of any justification to suggest that such harmful effect upon the character of the landscape might be outweighed by the realisation of social, economic or environmental benefits to the wider community the proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP 3 of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ and associated Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13.

The proposal has elicited 17 objections and 116 expressions of support. ______

(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: No ______

(R) Reasons why planning permission should be refused

See reasons for refusal 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: 30/10/17

Reviewing Officer: Tim Williams Date: 08/11/17

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning, Housing and Regulatory Services REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REFERENCE 17/02438/PP

1. The proposed development relates to an open/undeveloped location within the 'Countryside Zone' as defined by the 'Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan' 2015 where support in principle is reserved for the appropriate ‘small-scale’ development relating to infill, rounding-off or redevelopment and change of use of existing buildings, or circumstances where it is satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal is an ‘exceptional case’ and can satisfactorily be accommodated within the landscape setting.

In this instance, the development does not constitute any appropriate infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use opportunity within the ‘Countryside Zone’ and neither is it considered that any substantive exceptional case has been demonstrated to justify the development and therefore the proposal, by virtue of its ‘open countryside’ location within the ‘Countryside Zone’ is contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP DM 1 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan' 2015 and associated Supplementary Guidance SG LDP REC/COM 1.

2. The proposed development includes engineering works located within the Natural Foreshore area as defined in the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ 2015 wherein there is a presumption against development unless this is supported by a specific operational purpose requiring a Natural Foreshore location.

Whilst it is accepted that there is no viable alternative access to the site from the land in this instance it is not considered that any substantial exceptional case, including a locational or operational requirement, to justify the development has been demonstrated and therefore the proposal, by virtue of its location partially within the Natural Foreshore, is contrary to the provisions of Policies LDP DM 1 and LDP 4 of the Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan 2015 and associated Supplementary Guidance SG LDP CST 1.

3. The site was historically used as a slate quarry but this use has long since ceased. The landscape has naturally regenerated to such an extent that it is now considered that the introduction of the proposed recreational building, the ancillary ‘garden shed’ and the substantial engineering operations consisting of a boat landing area, an area of hardstanding and access paths is materially harmful to the naturally regenerated and undeveloped nature of the site and its wild characteristics. The setting of the development within the wider landscape constitutes a visually incongruous break within an extensive area of deciduous woodland. This results in a strident and alien geometrical built form representing an undesirable sporadic development within the countryside to the detriment of the existing undeveloped settlement pattern and to the unspoilt, undeveloped and largely natural character of the landscape. This gives rise to a significant adverse impact on the Knapdale/Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality. In the absence of any justification to suggest that such harmful effect upon the character of the landscape might be outweighed by the realisation of social, economic or environmental benefits to the wider community the proposal is accordingly considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP 3 of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ and associated Supplementary Guidance SG LDP ENV 13. APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 17/02438/PP

PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

A. Settlement Strategy

In terms of the adopted ‘Argyll and Bute Local Development Plan’ (LDP) 2015, the application site is located within the ‘Countryside Zone’ where Policy LDP DM 1 only gives encouragement to sustainable development on an appropriate infill, rounding off, redevelopment and change of use of building basis. This policy further states that, in exceptional circumstances, development may be supported on appropriate sites where it accords with an Area Capacity Evaluation (ACE). Policy SG CST 1 sets out that the preferred location for developments requiring a coastal location is the ‘Developed Coast’ which consists of coastal areas within the ‘Settlement’ Development Management Zone, excluding the natural foreshore. Within the Natural Foreshore, there is a presumption against development unless there is a specific operational purpose for the proposals Natural Foreshore location.

The applicant has stated that the main building the subject of this application constitutes the development of a recreational ‘hut’. Section 79 of Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 2014 requires that Local Plans should set out a spatial strategy which, where appropriate, sets out policies and proposals for leisure accommodation, such as holiday units, caravans, and huts.

The SPP Glossary defines a hut as:

However, whilst the proposed building has an internal floor area not exceeding 30 square metres it is considered to be a relatively substantial building containing a two storey element provided for by a steeply sloping monopitch roof and the inclusion of a mezzanine floor at first floor level with high level windows to the rear designed to serve the inserted gallery floor. The building is not capable of being transported as a single unit (particularly given the lack of any road access to the site) and it is considered that its removal would require wholescale demolition/dismantling of the building.

The SPP represents a statement of what Local Authorities are expected to include in their Local Plans, and how Ministers and their Planning Inspectors are likely to rule if Local Authority planning refusals are appealed and, as such, is a significant material consideration in the determination of the application. SG LDP REC/COM 1 recognises that sport, recreational and community facilities are essential to the quality of life, health and well-being of both local communities and visitors to Argyll and Bute and aims to promote the creation of recreation facilities whilst safeguarding areas of valued open space from being lost to new development.

The proposed development does not constitute an ‘exceptional case’ and there is no locational requirement for the proposed development to be sited within the designated Countryside Zone on a site that does not present any opportunity for infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of an existing building. The simple provision of a hut for recreational purposes does not constitute an ‘exceptional case’ in and of itself as SG LDP REC/COM 1 makes provisions for appropriate scales, designs and locations of leisure/recreational accommodation (including huts) as required by SPP subject to consistency with policy LDP DM 1. For the purpose of clarification and avoidance of any doubt, it is noted that, having regard to the provisions of SG LDP ACE 1 and in the absence of an ‘exceptional case’ being satisfactorily demonstrated, officers have not produced a formal Area Capacity Evaluation in their assessment of the proposal.

In the absence of any justification to suggest that there is a locational or operational justification for the presence of the alleged ‘hut’ it must also be considered that there is valid specific operational purpose to justify the engineering works which have been undertaken within the Natural Foreshore to facilitate access to the development. In this respect the proposal is also considered to be contrary to the relevant provisions of SG LDP CST 1.

B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

Retrospective planning permission is sought for a recreational building alleged to be a ‘hut’ which has been built on an area of land approximately 830 metres to the northeast of the Atlantic Bridge, Clachan Seil.

Whilst the submitted application does not make provision for development beyond that of the main recreational building, a detailed site inspection has revealed also the presence of a small timber ‘garden shed’ and an extensive area of hardstanding and access pathways formed from compacted stone chippings and constructed with the aid of both a mechanical shovel and a mechanical ‘road roller’, both of which remain on site (as of 7th |November 2017).

The overall site within which the ‘hut’ is sited measures approximately 11,900 square metres in size situated to the north of the Atlantic Bridge overlooking Clachan Sound. The site is not readily visible from the Atlantic Bridge with the only views into it from Clachan Sound and the undeveloped land to the west on the opposite side of the Sound. The site was historically used as a slate quarry but this use has long since ceased with some evidence of slate spoil around the periphery of the site.

More recently it is alleged that that site was used as an encampment and occupied by an individual for a number of years, however this is not a matter that was ever raised formally with the Planning Service and never investigated by the Council as Planning Authority. Whilst there is no doubt that there was an encampment on the site, the evidence available to the Council strongly suggests that the person residing there occupied the site under canvas within the woodland and that this occupation did not involve the erection/construction of buildings or structures or the implementation of any material engineering operations amounting to operational development.

The alleged ‘hut’ is a relatively substantial rectangular structure measuring 31.3 square metres in size with a maximum height of approximately 5.2 metres to the highest point of a sloping monopitch roof. The ‘hut’ has been finished externally in dark stained horizontal timber cladding its roof finished in dark corrugated material and incorporating a substantial overhang.

Whilst the applicant has claimed that no water or drainage connections are proposed as part of the development, a recent site inspection has revealed that a private water supply has been installed from an adjacent burn to a new standpipe located immediately adjacent to the building, though not connected to the building’s interior.

The main building contains a mezzanine ‘gallery’ floor at first floor level which is currently empty except for what appears to be the small scale storage of boating equipment. A row of four high-level windows plus one in each of the side elevations affords natural illumination to this gallery floor. The ground floor of the building is currently open, consisting of a single room, sparsely furnished with no bathroom or kitchen facilities except for a microwave oven and a kettle powered by a small generator.

The building appears to provide level access from the outside but with a small step down to the existing internal floor level which seems to be uncompleted at this present time.

The building appears to be insulated internally though it is evident that the internal wall structure is not yet complete. The application has been accompanied by a justification for the development which states that an exceptional case can be made for what is claimed to be a recreational ‘hut’, as it is not to be used for residential purposes.

The justification states that the alleged ‘hut’ will be used to store kayaks, life jackets, ropes, wet suits, wind surfing gear etc. and therefore has to be near the sea with the site chosen being the only landing place along this coast which can be safely accessed by disabled persons.

The justification goes on to advise that the applicant’s wife has MS and is confined to a wheelchair and looks forward to travelling with her husband to the site where she can accompany him and stay when he participates in sea going activities.

The justification states that the development is small scale and does not detract from the landscape or injure the visual amenities of the area as the site is a derelict slate quarry with the ‘hut’ sitting in woodland only visible from a narrow angle from the north west.

The justification concludes by stating that the application is lent weight by Government Policy which supports the provision of huts with the site being the only one which can be safely accessed by wheelchairs in this area and the Council should support disabled persons so that their lives are enhanced and they are not confined to their own homes without having the opportunity to participate in recreational activities.

In response to the justification submitted, the fact that the alleged recreational ‘hut’ is not to be used for residential purposes does not in itself demonstrate an exceptional case. The justification states that the ‘hut’ will be used to store kayaks, life jackets, ropes, wet suits, wind surfing gear which does not accord with the definition of a ‘hut’ as defined in SPP as “a simple building used intermittently as recreational accommodation ….” The area around Clachan Sound is frequently used by visitors both on the land and on the water with kayaks, small pleasure crafts etc. with no requirement for them to have a permanent site/structure to store equipment. It is not an essential requirement to be able to store equipment in this location to allow Clachan Sound to be enjoyed. Sea based activities do not have to depend on land based sites/structures and can be enjoyed and undertaken throughout most of the coastline of the area, much of which is accessible. The proposal does not demonstrate a specific locational need for the alleged ‘hut’ to be in this particular site within the Countryside Zone. The alleged ‘hut’ could be sited in any number of equally accessible places within the countryside but within an area where the LDP lends support to small scale recreational development such as a ROA which have been mapped specifically with a view to identifying areas within which there is a general capacity to successfully absorb small scale development, including open countryside locations, where appropriate forms of small scale development accord with the landscape character and development pattern.

In summary, it is not considered that the justification statement submitted demonstrates an exceptional case requiring a building to allow water based activities to be undertaken within this particular area of Clachan Sound.

Notwithstanding the above, it is evident from a recent site inspection that the majority of the proposed main building does not appear to be currently utilised for the storage of boats and boating paraphernalia. Whilst there appears to be a small amount of storage of such equipment within the gallery level of the building, the majority of the gallery plus the open ground floor of the building is currently clear of such equipment and is occupied instead by lightweight chairs, small tables and by a small amount of rudimentary residential equipment; though there is no evidence to suggest that the building is currently being occupied for residential purposes. In addition to the justification statement, an Engineers Report was prepared for the site by Adrian Laycock FICE. The report maintains that there has been no engineering work carried out on site other than some smoothing of an existing pathway, done in order to facilitate access by wheelchairs, with some quarry waste utilised in filling in hollows and narrows on the old path.

Whilst the Planning Service cannot disprove the content of the Engineers Report due to the retrospective nature of the application and the lack of any ‘before development’ photographs or site inspection, it is suggested from visiting the site that relatively substantial works appear to have recently taken place to form the site for the ‘hut’ and its surrounding pedestrian/wheelchair access pathways, both from the shore and within the surrounding site area. There are currently (as of 7th November 2017) two items of mechanical construction equipment on the site plus evidence of the delivery of building materials. However the applicant maintains that that the majority of these engineering works were completed prior to him taking ownership of the site. Whatever the position, these works are considered to constitute currently unauthorised engineering operations which the Planning Service would seek to have reinstated.

The development site does not present any opportunities for small scale development on an appropriate infill, rounding-off, redevelopment or change of use of building basis as required by Policy LDP DM 1 and the statement submitted in support of the proposed development does not constitute an ‘exceptional case’ as defined in SG LDP ACE 1.

In the absence of any valid claim of locational/operational need, the proposed development, by virtue of its ‘open countryside’ location within the ‘Countryside Zone’ is contrary to the provisions of policy LDP DM 1 and associated SG LDP REC/COM 1.

C. Natural Environment

The application site is located within the Knapdale and Melfort Area of Panoramic Quality (APQ) designated for its high scenic beauty where Policy LDP 3 and SG LDP ENV 13 seeks to resist development where its scale, location or design will have a significant adverse impact on the character of an APQ unless it is adequately demonstrated that any significant or adverse effects on the landscape quality for which the area has been designated are clearly outweighed by social, economic or environmental benefits of community wide importance. In this respect it is noted that the intent of the policy is to provide locally important landscapes with adequate protection against damaging development that would diminish their high scenic value. APQs are important not only for their physical landforms and scenic value but also for the environmental assets that they represent. These qualities could easily be destroyed or damaged by even a relatively small, insensitive development and must therefore be protected.

Having regard to SNH’s Landscape Assessment of Argyll and the Firth of Clyde (1996) the application site is located within the south western edge of the “Craggy Uplands” landscape character type (LCT) at a point of transition with the adjacent “Slate Islands” LCT. The Craggy Uplands LCT are extensive extending from Loch Linnhe to Loch Melfort on the west coast. The coastal landform of the Craggy Uplands LCT comprises low cliffs and rounded, rocky headlands, separated by narrow bays of shingle. The Slate Islands LCT are at the western fringes of the “Craggy Uplands” LCT and include part of Seil Island, the eastern shore of the Seil Sound, the island of Luing, and many off-shore islands to the south and west. Outcrops of slate have produced a distinctive coastline and islands along with a long history of slate quarrying.

The Landscape Assessment notes that both LCTs are likely to be susceptible to pressure for built development along the coastline. Within the Craggy Uplands LCT it is noted that the coastline is of scenic and historic importance and such is often highly sensitive to change. It is noted that coastal areas cannot easily accommodate further development as the cliffs, rocky moorland, deeply indented coastline and off-shore islands are a stunning combination of landscape features with a distinctive identity and wild natural character that are extremely sensitive to change. Whilst it is advised that the irregular landform and scattered woodlands along the coastline may provide some scope for screening small built developments the relatively remote, natural character of the landscape should be conserved wherever possible. Within the Slate Islands LCT it is recommended that built development should be limited, especially in sensitive coastal locations, although there is some scope to incorporate new buildings into existing settlements provided that their characteristic (loose knit) pattern is conserved. The guidance also advises that in considering new development, the vernacular building style should be adhered to and that new buildings should be relatively small in size, and simple in architectural style – traditionally buildings are found in clusters, painted white and set back from the coast in sheltered sites. It is identified that opportunities for new development are limited; there are few isolated buildings and scattered development would be out of character with the traditional settlement pattern.

In this particular instance the development relates to an isolated coastal location which has previously been utilised as a slate quarry. Mineral extraction at this location is very much a historic activity which has been long abandoned to the extent that the site has since naturally regenerated to the extent that the previous quarrying activity has been subsumed by deciduous woodland. The proposal relates to an alleged ‘hut’ which has been built for recreational purposes along with an ancillary outbuilding of domestic appearance, and engineering works to facilitate access to the site from the sea and to form a building platform. The development is of a simple but non-traditional timber clad, asymmetric design which is small scale in both its nature and appearance and is located within a clearing which has been formed in the naturally regenerated deciduous woodland but is open to view to the sea.

The development undertaken to date, by virtue of its relative inaccessibility including the lack of any pedestrian or vehicular access to the site, its remoteness from existing areas of habitation and significant or frequented public view points, and the screening effect of woodland around the building is not considered to have a significant impact upon visual amenity from locations which might be considered to be sensitive receptors.

Notwithstanding the fact that it is difficult to for members of the public to access or readily obtain views of the development it is nonetheless considered that in this instance the introduction of new built development to an isolated and otherwise undeveloped area has had a significant and materially harmful impact upon a sensitive coastal location which, prior to the unauthorised development being undertaken, was characterised by its general inaccessibility and a lack of evident human presence within or intervention upon the locality’s relatively remote and wild nature. The introduction of built development as a base for establishing a regular human presence and activity at this isolated location, even on a small scale, and the engineering of landform to provide boat access on the rocky foreshore and access within the vicinity of the building all represent sporadic and alien built features within the undeveloped, wild context of the surrounding landscape. The current application is not supported by any claim which would suggest that the perceived significant adverse effects to the landscape character of the Knapdale/Melfort APQ might be outweighed by realisation of social, economic or environmental benefits which are of community wide importance and accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy LDP 3 and associated SG LDP ENV 13.