Public Document Pack Argyll and Bute Council Comhairle Earra Ghaidheal agus Bhoid
Corporate Services Director: Nigel Stewart
Dalriada House, Lochnell Street, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8ST Tel: 01546 602177 Fax: 01546 604530
29 April 2008
NOTICE OF MEETING
A meeting of the MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE will be held in the VILLAGE HALL, SCALASAIG, ISLE OF COLONSAY on WEDNESDAY, 7 MAY 2008 at 12:45 PM , which you are requested to attend.
Nigel Stewart Director of Corporate Services
BUSINESS
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES OF MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE HELD ON 2 APRIL 2008 (Pages 1 - 8)
4. PRESENTATION BY ISLAY HIGH SCHOOL AND FALLS PREVENTION TEAM
5. PUBLIC AND COUNCILLOR QUESTION TIME
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS (Pages 9 - 72)
7. DELEGATED DECISIONS (Pages 73 - 90)
8. CONSULTATIONS FROM HISTORIC SCOTLAND FOR LISTING
(a) Castleton House, Lochgilphead (Pages 91 - 94)
(b) Passenger Building at Pier Square, Ardrishaig (Pages 95 - 98)
(c) Campbeltown Picture House (Pages 99 - 102)
9. JURA PASSENGER FERRY - VERBAL UPDATE
OPERATIONAL SERVICES
10. MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA CAPITAL RECONSTRUCTION 2008/9 (Pages 103 - 106)
11. REDEVELOPMENT AT PORT ASKAIG (Pages 107 - 110)
12. A83 AT BEALACH A CHAOCHAIN (Pages 111 - 112)
CORPORATE SERVICES
13. BT PAYPHONES (Pages 113 - 120)
14. AREA CAPITAL RECEIPT MONIES
(a) Report by Head of Strategic Finance (Pages 121 - 124)
(b) Report by Area Corporate Services Manager (Pages 125 - 132)
COMMUNITY SERIVICES
15. EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT AND LEISURE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS 2008/9 (Pages 133 - 136)
16. OLDER PEOPLES SERVICES (Pages 137 - 168)
17. JOINT LOCALITY MEETINGS: JOINT FUTURE (Pages 169 - 174)
The Committee will be asked to pass a resolution in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for items of business with an “E” on the grounds that it is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in the appropriate paragraph of Part I of Schedule 7a to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
The appropriate paragraphs are:-
E1 Paragraph 9 Any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or services.
E2 & E3 Paragraph 13 Information which, if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the authority proposes-
(a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment.
E4 Paragraph 8 The amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by the authority under any particular contract for the acquisition of property or the supply of goods or services.
Paragraph 9 Any terms proposed or to be proposed by or to the authority in the course of negotiations for a contract for the acquisition or disposal of property or the supply of goods or services.
E1 18. SALE OF FORMER SWIMMING POOL AT ST CLAIR ROAD, ARDRISHAIG (Pages 175 - 178)
E2 19. QUARTERLY ENFORCEMENT REPORT (Pages 179 - 184)
E3 20. ENFORCEMENT ACTION
(a) 07/00147/ENFOTH (Pages 185 - 194)
(b) 07/00148/ENFOTH (Pages 195 - 204)
(c) 08/00007/ENFHSH (Pages 205 - 208)
E4 21. UPDATE ON BRUICHLADDICH PIER (Pages 209 - 210)
MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Robin Currie Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Anne Horn Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Donald MacMillan (Chair) Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Douglas Philand Councillor John Semple (Vice-Chair)
Contact: Hazel Kelly, Senior Committee Assistant Tel: 01546 604269
This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 3
MINUTES of MEETING of MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE & THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, KILMORY, LOCHGILPHEAD on WEDNESDAY, 2 APRIL 2008
Present: Councillor Donald MacMillan (Chair)
Councillor Rory Colville Councillor Donald Kelly Councillor Robin Currie Councillor John McAlpine Councillor Alison Hay Councillor Dougie Philand Councillor Anne Horn
Attending: Shirley MacLeod, Area Corporate Services Manager Hazel Kelly, Senior Committee Assistant Richard Kerr, Area Team Leader Patrick Mackie, Area Environmental Services Manager Peter Bain, Senior Planning Officer Dr Liz Cunningham, Head Teacher, Islay High School Ann Devine, Head Teacher, Lochgilphead High School Andrew Robertson, Development Officer Sarah MacKinnon, Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust Daniel Downie, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue John Rae, Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Jennifer Crawford, Estates Surveyor Stewart Turner, Head of Roads and Amenity Services Lynn Taggart, Scottish Water Solutions
Apologies: Councillor John Semple John Ironside, SFR CI Kenny Boyter, Strathclyde Police
The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed that the business dealt with at item 5 of this minute be dealt with as a matter of urgency by reason that the Head Teacher of Lochgilphead High School had been scheduled to attend this meeting and was present but the papers required for the presentation had not been forwarded to Corporate Services and therefore the presentation was not included on the agenda for the meeting.
1. MINUTES
(a) MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE HELD ON 5 MARCH 2008
The Minutes of the meeting of the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands Area Committee held on 5 March 2008 were approved as a correct record.
The Committee agreed that a further report on Older Peoples Services be provided to the Area Committee in May.
The Committee noted that the Scottish Ambulance Service would be providing a presentation to the Area Committee in June.
Page 2
The Committee noted that the Director of Community Services would be submitting an urgent report on Campbeltown Nursery to the Executive Committee.
(b) SPECIAL MEETING OF MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE HELD ON 25 MARCH 2008
The Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands Area Committee held on 25 March 2008 were approved as a correct record.
2. PRESENTATION OF EAT SAFE AWARD
The Area Environmental Services Manager gave a background to the Eat Safe Award, the aims of the scheme and congratulated Bruce Johnston and staff at the Smiddy Restaurant on their achievement. Councillor MacMillan presented the award to Bruce Johnston who accepted it on behalf of the Smiddy Restaurant. Bruce thanked the Committee and expressed that it was a great honour to achieve the award.
3. PRESENTATION - KILMORY HOME FARM BY STRATHCLYDE BUILDING PRESERVATION TRUST
Sarah MacKinnon of Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust gave a presentation updating Members on Kilmory Home Farm options appraisal, next steps for the project and estimated completion date of the study.
Decision
The Area Committee agreed that as the study would be finished in June that a further report be provided to the June meeting of the Area Committee.
4. PRESENTATION - ISLAY HIGH SCHOOL - ACHIEVEMENT REPORT 2008
The Head Teacher of Islay High School gave an informative presentation outlining the major achievements of the school throughout the year 2006/7. A report was also submitted outlining those achievements, aims of the school and SQA examination results for the year 2007.
Decision
The Committee noted the strong performance of pupils and commitment of staff in their examination successes and in the wider aspects of achievement across the school.
(Reference: Report by Head Teacher, Islay High School dated March 2008, submitted)
5. LOCHGILPHEAD HIGH SCHOOL: ACHEIVEMENT REPORT 2008
The Head Teacher of Lochgilphead High School gave an informative Page 3
presentation outlining the major achievements of the school throughout the year 2006/7 and the move to the new joint campus. A report was also submitted outlining those achievements, aims of the school and SQA examination results for the year 2007.
Decision
1. The Committee noted the strong performance of pupils, commitment of staff in their examination successes, wider aspects of achievement across the school and the excellent joint working and co-operation from staff and pupils during the move to the new joint campus.
2. The Committee agreed to arrange a visit to the new joint campus during the summer holidays.
(Reference: Report by Head Teacher, Lochgilphead High School dated April 2008, tabled)
6. PUBLIC AND COUNCILLOR QUESTION TIME
Councillor Hay requested that the Head of Roads and Amenity Services provide to a future meeting of the Area Committee a detailed plan of where the budget for roads in Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands would be spent over the current financial year
Councillor Colville enquired as to when work would be starting on the new police station in Campbeltown. As there was no representative from Strathclyde Police at the meeting it was agreed that the Area Corporate Services Manager would find out and respond to Councillor Colville direct.
Councillor Colville brought to the Committee’s attention that Inspector David Lavery would be retiring and the Committee agreed that a letter be sent to him thanking him for his hard work and service provided to the Committee.
Councillor Currie asked if there was any update regarding upgrades in capacity of the water supplies in Port Ellen and Port Charlotte and it was agreed that Scottish Water would respond directly to the Area Corporate Services Manager who would then circulate the response to Members.
Councillor MacAlpine recorded that since the Committee meeting in February when he had enquired about works on Garvel Road, Tarbert he had still not heard anything from Scottish Water.
Councillor Colville offered commendation to Strathclyde Fire and Rescue for the work they did in connection with the Road Safety Campaign. He also enquired about what Fire and Rescue were doing in Argyll and Bute in connection with recruitment. John Rae informed him that most of the promotion was being done in the central belt with radio campaigns and that people in Argyll and Bute could receive information from the website.
Councillor Philand informed Scottish Water that a question had been raised at Ardrishaig Community Council meeting about the discharges in Ardrishaig and Page 4
about chlorine levels in the drinking water in Ardrishaig. It was agreed that Scottish Water would respond directly to Councillor Philand on these issues..
Daniel Downie informed the Committee that a recognition award would be presented to Minard Fire Crew for the outstanding work they had done during a house fire in Furnace earlier in the year. He extended an invitation to the Area Committee to attend this presentation that would take place on 8 April 2008 at 6.45pm in Minard Fire Station.
7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Head of Planning had submitted 4 applications for consideration by the Committee all relating to the Water Treatment Works in Campbeltown.
Decision
The Committee agreed that due to its nature this item should be considered in Campbeltown and therefore be carried forward to a future meeting. It was agreed that the venue for the June meeting be changed from Kilmory to Campbeltown and that the item be considered at that meeting.
(Reference: Reports by Head of Planning dated March 2008, submitted)
8. DELEGATED DECISIONS
The Head of Planning had submitted a list of delegated decisions taken since the meeting of the Area Committee held on 5 March 2008.
Decision
The Committee noted the delegated decisions taken by Development Services since the meeting of the Area Committee held on 5 March 2008.
(Reference: List of Delegated Decisions by Head of Planning dated 14 March 2008, submitted)
9. CONSERVATION AREAS - PROMOTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES FOR HOME OWNERS
Members had requested at a recent Committee that a paper be provided on promoting responsibilities of property owners within Conservation Areas. The report, submitted by the Head of Planning asked that members note that Historic Scotland are currently reviewing their policy on private windows and that until the implications of a revised national policy are assessed that the Council would not be in a position to publicise their view.
Decision
The Area Committee noted that a corporate policy statement would be produced in due course outlining the Council’s position in respect of all Conservation Areas in Argyll and Bute. Page 5
(Reference: Report by Head of Planning dated March 2008, submitted)
10. JURA PASSENGER FERRY - VERBAL UPDATE
The Area Corporate Services Manager updated members in connection with the Jura Ferry Service.
Decision
Members requested that a further report be provided to the Area Committee meeting in May.
(Reference: Verbal update by Area Corporate Services Manager)
11. REDEVELOPMENT AT PORT ASKAIG
The Head of Roads and Amenity Services submitted a report updating members on the current position with the works at Port Askaig.
Decision
The Area Committee noted the report by the Head of Roads and Amenity Services and requested that a further report be provided to the Area Committee in May.
(Reference: Report by Head of Roads and Amenity Services dated 17 March 2008, submitted)
12. TRANSERVS INVESTMENT PROGRAMME A83 - KENNACRAIG/LOCHGILPHEAD
The Head of Roads and Amenity Services submitted a report advising Members of the proposed road works on the A83 Trunk Road in 2008/9.
Decision
The Committee –
1. Noted the non attendance by Transerv at the meeting.
2. Noted the Content of the report by the Head of Roads and Amenity Services.
3. Requested that a further report be provided to the Area Committee in May on the road at Bealach a’ Chaochain.
(Reference: Report by Head of Roads and Amenity Services dated 17 March 2008, submitted)
Page 6
13. EXTRACT FROM ECONOMY PPG HELD ON 13 MARCH 2008 AND REPORT BY HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE
There was submitted an extract from the Minute of the Economic Policy and Performance Group held on 13 March, a report by the Head of Democratic Services and Governance regarding the Council’s current policy and arrangements for twinning in Argyll and Bute and an information booklet prepared by Alyn Smith detailing budgets available for European Towns and people to create links.
Decision
The Area Committee noted the decisions taken by the Economic Policy and Performance Group at their meeting on 13 March 2008 regarding twinning arrangements in Argyll and Bute.
(Reference: extract from the Minute of the Economic Policy and Performance Group held on 13 March, a report by the Head of Democratic Services and Governance and information booklet by Alyn Smith, submitted)
The Committee resolved in terms of Section 50(A)(4) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 to exclude the public for the following item of business on the grounds that it was likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 9 of Part 1 of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
14. REVIEW OF TERMS FOR LEASE OF INVERARAY JAIL
The Director of Corporate Services submitted a report regarding the lease arrangements for Inveraray Jail.
Decision
The Committee agreed recommendation 2.1(b) as detailed in the report by the Director of Corporate Services.
(Reference: Report by Director of Corporate Services dated 18 March 2008, submitted)
The Chair ruled and the Committee agreed to adjourn the meeting at 1.15pm and to reconvene at 2.00pm.
The meeting re-convened at 2pm. Councillor Hay and Councillor MacAlpine did not return to the meeting.
15. RE-ORGANISATION OF ROADS AND AMENITY SERVICES
The Head of Roads and Amenity Services submitted a paper on the new approach to the delivery of Roads and Amenity Services.
Decision
Page 7
The Committee noted the details of the paper submitted by the Head of Roads and Amenity Services, and asked that service delivery be maintained to a consistent standard across the entire Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands area.
(Reference: Paper submitted by Head of Roads and Amenity Services dated 17 March 2008, submitted.)
Page 8
This page is intentionally left blank Page 9 Agenda Item 6 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE AT THEIR MEETING ON 7 MAY 2008
1. 07/02387/DET Novera Energy Detailed Erection of 20 wind turbines and associated infrastructure Land at A’Cruach, Kilmichael Forest, west of Minard
Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to: i) The conditions and reasons set out in the report by the Head of Planning. ii) The prior conclusion of a legal agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of a bond to ensure that the decommissioning costs of the site are secured, to require off-site habitat and mitigation measures in respect of a confidential species identified by Scottish Natural Heritage, and to secure an element of funding towards the upkeep and improvement of the Carron Bothy. iii) Notification to the Scottish Ministers under the provisions of Circular 5/2007 (re: EIA Development)
2. 08/00089/DET Northern Energy Developments Ltd. Detailed Planning Permission Development of a wood fired heat and power plant Land north-east of E McGinty Ltd, Achnabreck, Cairnbaan
Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons attached in the report by the Head of Planning, as a minor variation to draft local plan policy, given that a electricity generation plant does not constitute a Class 5 or 6 industrial/storage use for which the site has been allocated.
3. 08/00158/DET Mr Paul Quinn Householder Erection of a shed (retrospective) 11A Hillside Road, Campbeltown
Recommendation It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the report by the Head of Planning.
4. 08/00498/COU Janet Lumb and Angela Whiles Change of use Change of use of and for the siting of 2 caravans Land North East of Kilchrist Castle Cottages, Campbeltown
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\3\0\AI00040032\PlanningList0.doc Page 10 Recommendation It is recommended that planning permission be refused as development contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan for the reasons attached in the report by the Head of Planning.
E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\3\0\AI00040032\PlanningList0.doc Page 11
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ward Number - 3 Mid Argyll PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 08.01.08 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS Committee Date - 7th May 2008
Reference Number: 07/02387/DET Applicants Name: Novera Energy Application Type: Detailed Application Description: Erection of 20 wind turbines and associated infrastructure Location: Land at A’Cruach, Kilmichael Forest, west of Minard
(A ) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission:
• Erection of 20 No. 2.5 MW wind turbines with tubular towers, three blades (82 metre rotor diameter, 70 metres to hub height and 110 metres to blade tip height); • Improvement of forestry access road from A816 (10km.); • Formation of on-site tracks (7 km.); • Installation of 33 kv underground cabling (20km.); • Construction of switchgear building (200 sq. metres and 5 metres high) and associated transformer compound; • Formation of temporary construction storage compound (2,500 sq. metres); • Erection of permanent lattice meteorological mast (70 metres) and two temporary monitoring masts.
(ii) Other aspects of the proposal:
• Formation of on-site borrow pits to provide 100,000m 2 of construction stone (to be subject of separate mineral extraction applications); • Underground connection to an existing 132kv transmission line to the east of the site; • Formation of forestry ‘keyholes’ and short-rotation forestry operations, with replanting in accordance with approved Forest Design Plan.
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to:
i) the conditions and reasons set out in this report;
ii) the prior conclusion of a legal agreement under Section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 in respect of a bond to ensure that the decommissioning costs of the site are secured, to require off-site habitat survey and mitigation measures in respect of a confidential species identified by Scottish Natural Heritage, and to secure an element of funding towards the upkeep and improvement of the Carron Bothy.
iii) notification to the Scottish Ministers under the provisions of Circular 5/2007 (re: EIA Development)
(C) SUMMARY OF DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Development Plan Context:
The proposal has been assessed against adopted Structure Plan polices relating to sustainability (SI 1), wind farm development (RE 1), nature conservation (DC 7), landscape (DC 8) and the historic environment (DC 9), and is found to be consistent with these.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 12
The adopted Mid Argyll Local Plan affords protection to the Knapdale National Scenic Area, the Knapdale Melfort Regional Scenic Area and the Loch Fyne Regional Scenic Coast (policies RUR 1 and 2). The proposal does not give rise to landscape, visual or cumulative issues which conflict with these policies.
Policy LP REN 1 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Modified Finalised Draft) 2007, is the most up to date expression of Council policy on windfarms over 20MW, taking into account the government’s recently revised SPP 6. However, as this policy has been subject to representation at the Public Local Inquiry into the plan, it may only be accorded little weight for the time being as a material consideration in the determination of applications, as it may be subject to modification prior to the adoption of the plan. The application should therefore be determined in the light of SPP6 considerations and the advice in PAN 45, having regard to relevant adopted local plan policies along with uncontested policies in the emergent local plan.
The development is consistent with those uncontested policies in the Finalised Plan governing relevant issues including nature conservation, the historic environment, water quality and landscape considerations.
(ii) Representations:
One letter of objection on landscape grounds and one letter expressing ornithological concerns have been received, along with two letters of support for the development. ArgyllWindFarms.com have confirmed that they do not object to the proposal.
(iii) Consideration of the Need for Non-Statutory or PAN 41 Hearing:
Not required in view of the limited number of representations received.
(iv) Reasoned Justification for a Departure to the Provisions of the Development Plan:
Not applicable.
(v) Is the Proposal a Schedule 1 or 2 EIA development:
Schedule 2 EIA Development. Application accompanied by Environmental Statement.
(vi) Does the Council have an interest in the site:
No.
(vii) Need and Reason for Notification to Scottish Ministers.
EIA Development.
(viii) Has a sustainability Checklist Been Submitted:
No. The application proposes a sustainable form of electricity generation and the Environmental Statement addresses sustainability considerations.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 22 nd April 2008
Author and contact officer: Richard Kerr 01546 604080
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 13
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 07/02387/DET
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the wind farm hereby permitted shall be operational within five years from the date of this approval unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority, following which, by virtue of there having been no start on the development hereby permitted, this consent will be considered to have lapsed. Development which has been commenced but which remains uncompleted and has not resulted in an operational windfarm within this five year timescale (or otherwise agreed timescale) shall be fully restored in accordance with the applicant’s statement of intentions (i.e. Environmental Statement dated December 2007) and as provided for by conditions attached to this permission.
Reason: In order to reduce unnecessary blight over wind catchment areas and other potential sites which, cumulatively, may result in an adverse environmental impact, but individually might otherwise receive the benefit of planning permission.
2. The permission shall be for a period of 25 years from the commencement of the commercial operation of the wind farm, the date of which shall be notified in writing to the Council as Planning Authority. Within 12 months of the end of that period, unless a further planning application is submitted and approved, all wind turbines, ancillary equipment and buildings shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land reinstated in accordance with the applicant’s statement of intentions and conditions listed below, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: In order that the Planning Authority has the opportunity to review the circumstances pertaining to the consent, which is of a temporary nature and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
3. The operator shall at all times deal with the areas forming the subject of this approval in accordance with the provisions of the application and statement of intentions (i.e. Environmental Statement dated December 2007) and plans submitted, except as otherwise provided by this approval, and shall omit no significant part of the operations provided for therein except with the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in order that the Planning Authority may retain effective control in the interests of wildlife and visual amenity.
4. This permission should not be construed as conferring consent for the working of any of the borrow pit locations referred to in the application and accompanying Environmental Statement, the precise nature, extent and working method of which will only be capable of being determined following site investigations which have yet to be undertaken.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, and having regard to the need for separate mineral planning consents.
5. Prior to development commencing, details of the turbine model selected for installation on the site and confirmation of the final micro-siting of turbines shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority. Prior to the turbines first being brought into use, the developer shall submit to the Council as Planning Authority, location details for each turbine as erected in the form of Global Positioning System co- ordinates.
Reason: In order to demonstrate that the windfarm has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
6. If, by reason of any circumstances not foreseen by the applicant, it becomes necessary or expedient during the continuance of the operations hereby approved to materially amend or abandon any of the provisions hereof, the applicant or operator shall forthwith submit to the Planning Authority an amended application, plans and statement of intentions but shall also adhere to and comply with this consent until such time as an amended application shall have been determined by the said Authority.
Reason: In order that the consent may be reconsidered should a change of intentions become necessary.
7. If, by reason of any circumstances not foreseen by the applicant or operator, any wind turbine fails to produce an electricity supply to a local grid for a continuous period of 12 months then it will be deemed to have ceased to be required and, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, the wind turbine and its ancillary equipment shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the site restored in accordance with the agreed scheme, all to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 14
Reason: In accordance with the Council’s policy to ensure that full and satisfactory restoration of the wind farm site takes place should it fall into disuse.
8. The wind turbines shall be finished in a matt grey white colour (RAL 9002 or RAL 7035), or similar to be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and the colour and finish of the wind turbines shall not be altered thereafter without the written consent of the Council as Planning Authority.
Reason: To reduce the impact of the turbines and minimise reflection in the interest of visual amenity.
9. There shall be no illumination of the wind turbines hereby permitted, nor shall any symbols, signs, logos, or other lettering be applied to the turbines without the prior approval of the Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the upland rural character of the area in the interests of visual amenity.
10. Before the cessation of the planning permission, a decommissioning plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Within 12 months of the planning consent lapsing, unless any further permission has been granted for their retention for an additional period, the wind turbines and all ancillary structures shall be removed, and the turbine bases and adjoining hard standings covered in soil/peat and re-seeded with appropriate vegetation in accordance with the requirements of the approved plan.
Reason: To ensure that disturbed areas of the site are reinstated in a proper manner in the interests of amenity.
11. All wires and cables between the wind turbines and sub-station shall be located underground within the access track verges or within three metres of the access tracks unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and the ground thereafter shall be reinstated to a condition equivalent to the land adjoining the trenches within two months of completion of cable laying to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. This excludes the identified crossing of the River Add as identified in the Environmental Statement , December 2007, paragraph 3.47.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and nature conservation.
12. Within six months of the windfarm becoming fully operational, all temporary site offices, containers, machinery and equipment shall be removed, and the materials storage compound/laydown area shall be fully restored in accordance with a scheme detailing vegetation replacement techniques and timing, which shall be submitted to and approved in advance by the Council as Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority.
Reason :In order to secure appropriate reinstatement of those areas disturbed by construction in the interests of amenity.
13. No development shall be commenced until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and agreed by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage. This should address all aspects of the construction process which might impact on the environment, including in particular, excavations and other earthworks, a management/reinstatement scheme for peat areas, the construction works associated with upgraded watercourse crossings, the management of waste streams, the timing of works to avoid periods of high rainfall; along with monitoring proposals, contingency plans and reinstatement measures. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the duly approved CMS.
Reason: In the interests of pollution control and protection of the water environment.
14. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the drainage proposals for the site, including foul drainage arrangements for the control building, and drainage for the vehicle accesses, storage areas and compounds, together with the provisions for the avoidance of sedimentation and pollution from construction works and the storage and use of oils and other potential pollutants, and measures for the monitoring and mitigation of erosion, shall be submitted for the approval of the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In order to prevent pollution of the water environment.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 15
15. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of a Restoration Method Statement and Restoration Monitoring Plan shall be submitted for the approval of the Council as Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The restoration method statement shall provide restoration proposals for those areas disturbed by construction works, including access tracks, hardstandings and other construction areas. Restoration of construction disturbed areas shall be implemented within 6 months of the commissioning of the windfarm, or as otherwise agreed in writing with the Council as Planning Authority. The monitoring programme shall include a programme of visits to monitor initial vegetation establishment and responses to further requirements, and long term monitoring as part of regular wind farm maintenance.
Reason: To ensure that disturbed areas of the site are reinstated in a proper manner following construction in the interests of amenity, landscape character and nature conservation.
16. The control building shall be faced in natural stone/smooth cement or wet dash render painted a recessive colour (or other natural/recessive finish as agreed in writing by the Planning Authority) with the roof finished in natural slate or a good quality slate substitute, samples or full details of which shall be submitted for the prior written approval of the Planning Authority prior to building works commencing.
Reason: In order to secure an appropriate appearance in the interests of amenity and to help assimilate the building into its landscape setting.
17. Prior to the commencement of development, details of materials, external finishes and colours for all ancillary elements, including transformers, switchgear/metering building, compound and fencing shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In order to secure an appropriate appearance in the interests of amenity and to help assimilate the structures into their landscape setting.
18. Details of the bird monitoring programme for the years of operation 1 to 5 inclusive and year 10 (as stipulated in section 7.88 Environmental Statement dated December 2007) shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the Planning Authority, in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter monitoring results for each period shall be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority within a four month period following each 12 month period of monitoring along with details of any mitigation measures required.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation. 19. At the request of the Council, following a complaint to the Council relating to noise emissions from the wind turbines, the developer shall undertake an investigation of the complaint, carry out monitoring, prepare and submit a report upon the problem and advise of any necessary remedial action in accordance with the methodology set out in the report entitle “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms ETSU-R-97” produced by the Energy Technology Support Unit on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry and take any such remedial action agreed to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority. Reason: To help to control and therefore, minimise possible noise pollution. 20. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the development, the Developer should agree with the Council as Planning Authority the working methods and operating times to be employed during the constructional phase, in order to prevent the occurrence of or minimise the effect of any nuisances. Reason: To help to control and therefore, minimise possible noise pollution.
21. The level of wind turbine noise from the site shall not exceed 35dB L A90 when measured at any residential property in accordance with the methodology of ETSU-R-97. Reason: To minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the local community.
22. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, the applicant shall provide warranty to the satisfaction of the Council as Planning Authority that the noise from turbine operation will be broad-band with no discernable tonal characteristics. Reason: To minimise the adverse impact of noise generated by the operations on the local community.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 16
23. No development shall be commenced until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the developer, agreed by the West of Scotland Archaeology Service and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the opportunity to identify and examine any items of archaeological interest which may be found on the site, and to allow any action required for the protection, preservation or recording of such remains. 24. Prior to the development commencing a full appraisal to demonstrate the wholesomeness and sufficiency of the private water supply to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. This assessment shall be carried out by a qualified and competent person(s). Such appraisal shall include a risk assessment having regard to the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006 and shall on the basis of such risk assessment specify the means by which a wholesome and sufficient water supply shall be provided and thereafter maintained to the development. Such appraisal shall also demonstrate that the wholesomeness and sufficiency of any other supply in the vicinity of the development, or any other person utilising the same source or supply, shall not be compromised by the proposed development. Furthermore, the development itself shall not be brought into use or occupied until the required supply has been installed in accordance with the agreed specification. Reason: In the interests of public health and in order to ensure that an adequate private water supply in terms of both wholesomeness and sufficiency can be provided to meet the requirements of the proposed development and without compromising the interests of other users of the same or nearby private water supplies.
25. Construction traffic shall access the site from the A816 via the Achnabreck/Kilmichael Forest haul road in accordance with the route stipulated in Figure 15.4 of the Environmental Statement. Specifically, no windfarm construction traffic shall access the site using the existing forest haul route from the A83(T) at Birdfield, by Minard.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
26. Throughout the construction and commissioning stages of the development, and during decommissioning, an appropriately qualified ‘Ecological Clerk of Works’ (as stipulated in Section 11.106 of the Environmental Statement) shall be available to direct the micro-siting of turbines, compounds and access tracks, to ensure that sensitive features are avoided, and that habitat enhancement works and all mitigation and restoration measures are fully implemented. The ECOW should liaise with Scottish Natural Heritage and the role of the ECOW should be clearly conveyed to all personnel prior to their commencement of work on the site.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
27. Prior to the commencement of construction work, an otter survey should be carried out by an experienced and appropriately licensed surveyor. The results of the survey should be submitted to the Council as Planning Authority for consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. Where otter are recorded by the survey, and disturbance to this species is concluded to be likely, the developer must identify appropriate mitigation where practicable, or seek a licence to disturb otters from the Scottish Governmentin order to be able to undertake operations within affected areas. Mitigation measures shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved measures.
Reason: In order to avoid disturbance to protected species in the interests of nature conservation.
28. Prior to the commencement of construction work, including forestry operations, a Mammal Protection Plan shall be developed in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and shall be submitted for written approval by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The plan shall be implemented at such time as forestry operations commence for the full duration of the construction phase of the development, in accordance with the duly approved measures.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 17
29. Prior to the commencement of construction work, including forestry operations, a Breeding Bird Management Plan shall be developed in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and shall be submitted and be approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. This should include appropriate measures to mitigate against black grouse colliding with handrails and lower tower sections. The plan shall be implemented at such time as forestry operations commence, for the full duration of both the construction and operational phases of the development, in accordance with the duly approved measures.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
30. Prior to the commencement of construction work, including forestry operations, a Black Grouse Habitat Management Plan shall be developed in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and shall be submitted and be approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority in consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage. The plan shall be implemented at such time as forestry operations commence, for the full duration of both the construction and operational phases of the development, in accordance with the duly approved measures.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
31. Notwithstanding the details shown in the application documentation, none of the following shall be permitted within 50 metres of any identified watercourse forming part of the Abhainn Bheag an Tunns catchment, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council as Planning Authority: i) areas to be used for the storage of chemicals; ii) operations involving the maintenance or refuelling of vehicles, plant or equipment; iii) the construction of any crane platforms or access tracks; iv) the location of Turbine 19 and its associated track and platform, which shall be micro-sited to ensure that the turbine and its associated infrastructure is located a minimum of 50 metres from the nearest watercourse.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
32. Throughout the full duration of construction works, silt traps shall be used in all drains and culverts which discharge water into watercourses within the Abhainn Bheag an Tunns catchment.
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
33. All forestry harvesting operations shall be carried out in accordance with best practice set out in the Forestry Commission’s ‘Forest and Water Guidelines’ (4 th Edition).
Reason: In the interests of nature conservation.
34. Prior to the commencement of turbine tower erection, a baseline TV reception study shall be undertaken and submitted to the Council as Planning Authority. Within 12 months of the final commissioning of the windfarm, any claim by any person for TV picture loss or interference at their household, office, shop or other building shall be investigated by a qualified television engineer and the results submitted to the Council as Planning Authority. Should any impairment to the TV reception be attributable to the windfarm, such impairment shall be improved to an acceptable standard of TV reception, such that the standard at the household, office, shop or other building at the time of the baseline reception study is maintained
Reason: In order to avoid interference with television reception as a result of the operation of the windfarm.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 18
APPENDIX RELATIVE TO APPLICATION 07/02387/DET
MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
i) POLICY OVERVIEW AND ADVICE
Scottish Planning Policy 6 (SPP6 - revised 2007) ‘Renewable Energy Developments’ Planning Advice Note 45 (PAN 45 - 2002) ‘Renewable Energy Technologies’
The promotion of renewable sources of electricity generation is endorsed as a means of meeting climate change commitments, achieving sustainable development and securing a diversity of sources of supply. A more co-ordinated approach than hitherto, using development plans to provide opportunities for windfarm development and identifying these spatially is advocated. Detailed advice is given on the manner in which such a spatial framework should be produced. In the meantime applications should continue to be determined pending the adoption of such policies. The Scottish Executive is committed to increasing the amount of renewable energy used in Scotland, whilst at the same time safeguarding natural heritage interests, including the conservation of landscape and the maintenance of biodiversity, respecting the historic environment, and engaging with the community.
It is recognised that in the short-term onshore wind power will continue to be the primary source of renewable generation. Consequently, careful consideration must be given to the need to address cumulative impacts. Proposals should be considered against criteria based development plan policies addressing those considerations reviewed in PAN 45.
Consideration of the significance of the identified adverse impacts of a wind farm proposal should be explicitly considered, in the light of the scale of contribution which a project would be capable of making to the Scottish Executive’s targets for renewable energy.
Other relevant national planning policy guidance includes:
• SPP 1: The Planning System (2002) • NPPG 5: Archaeology and Planning (1998) • NPPG 14: Natural Heritage (2005) • SPP 15: Rural Development (2005) • NPPG 18: Planning and the Historic Environment (1999) • SOED Circular 6/95 (as revised June 2000): Habitats Directive.
The underlying principle of all NPPG/SPPs and related policies is sustainable development. Some NPPGs are intended to encourage development, while others are intended to safeguard resources and features of national and international importance. Polices in the latter group do not necessarily preclude renewable energy developments, but development proposals should avoid significant adverse impact upon the character, quality, integrity and setting of designated resources.
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
Policy STRAT SI 1 – Sustainable Development.
Argyll and Bute Council shall adhere to the following principles in considering development proposals, and in its policies, proposals and land allocations in Local Plans. It will seek to:-
a) maximise the opportunity for local community benefit; b) make efficient use of vacant and/or brownfield land; c) support existing communities and maximise the use of existing service infrastructure; d) maximise the opportunities for sustainable forms of design, including energy efficiency; e) avoid the use of prime quality or locally important good quality agricultural land; f) use public transport routes fully and increase walking and cycling networks; g) avoid the loss of recreational and amenity open space; h) conserve the natural and built environment and avoid significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, natural and built heritage resources; i) respect the landscape character of an area and the setting and character of settlements; j) avoid places where there is a significant risk of flooding, tidal inundation, coastal erosion or ground instability; and k) avoid having an adverse effect on land, air and water quality.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 19
Policy STRAT DC 7 – Nature Conservation and Development Control
A) Development likely to have a significant effect on a Natura Site will be subject to an appropriate assessment. The development will only be permitted where the assessment indicates that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site, or, there are no alternative solutions and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
B) On sites of national importance, SSSIs and NNRs, development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the overall objectives of the designation and the overall integrity of the designated area would not be compromised, or where any adverse impacts are clearly outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.
C) Development which impacts on Local Wildlife Sites or other nature conservation interest, including sites, habitats or species at risk as identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan, shall be assessed carefully to determine its acceptability balance along with national – or local – social or economic considerations.
D) Enhancement to nature conservation interest will also be encouraged in association with development and land use proposals.
Policy STRAT DC 8 – Landscape and Development Control
1. Development which, by reason of location, siting, scale, form, design or cumulative impact, damages or undermines the key environmental features of a visually contained or wider landscape or coastscape shall be treated as ‘non-sustainable’ and is contrary to this policy. Outwith the National Park particulary important or vulnerable landscapes in Argyll and Bute are those associated with:
a) National Scenic Areas; b) Historic landscapes and their settings with close links with archaeology and built heritable and/or historic gardens and designed landscapes; c) Landward and coastal areas with semi-wilderness or isolated or panoramic quality.
2. Protection, conservation and enhancement to landscape will also be encouraged in association with development and land use proposals.
Policy STRAT DC 9 – Historic Environmental and Development Control
Protection, conservation, enhancement and positive management of the historic environment is promoted. Development that damages or undermines the historic, architectural or cultural qualities of the historic environment will be resisted; particularly if it would affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument or its setting, other recognised architectural site of national or regional importance, listed building or its setting, conservation area or historic garden or designed landscape. More detailed policy and proposals for the historic environment will e set out in the Local Plan.
Policy STRAT RE 1 – Wind Farm/Wind Turbine Development
A) Wind farm development is encouraged where it is consistent with STRAT DC 7, 8 and 9. Proposals shall be supported where it can be demonstrated there is no significant adverse effect on: • Local communities; • Natural environment; • Landscape character and visual amenity; • Historic environment; • Telecommunications, transmitting or receiving systems; and
B) The Council will identify, with appropriate justification in the Local Plan, broad areas of search or, where appropriate, specific sites where wind energy development may be permitted. The Council will also indicate sensitive areas or sites which it is adjudged that for overriding environmental reasons, proposals for wind farm development would only be considered in exceptional circumstances in line with the criteria set out above. Issues associated with the cumulative impact of wind farm and wind turbine developments will be addressed. This will be done in partnership with the industry and other interested parties including local communities.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 20
Mid Argyll Local Plan’ (1985 and 1 st Review 1989)
POL RUR 1
The Council will seek to maintain and where possible enhance the landscape quality of National Scenic Areas and areas of local landscape significance, and within these areas will resist prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact:
a) Knapdale National Scenic Area; b) Knapdale / Melfort Regional Scenic Area; c) Loch Fyne Regional Scenic Coast d) Area of local landscape significance.
(It should also be noted that the proposal has also been assessed against landscape designations in Cowal namely, Regional Scenic and local landscape designations on the east coast of Loch Fyne which are afforded protection by the Cowal Local Plan).
POL RUR 2
Proposals for development in or affecting National Scenic Areas and Coasts or areas of local landscape significance will be require to be assessed against the following criteria:
(a) environmental impact (b) locational/operational need (c) economic benefit (d) infrastructure and servicing implications
POL BE 1
The Council will encourage new works or uses which will result in the preservation and/or positive enhancement of Buildings of Architectural and Historic interest, ancient monuments and Sites of archaeological Importance. The Council will normally permit only those alterations to Statutory listed Buildings which maintain and/or enhance their special architectural or historic qualities. The Council will seek to protect the sites and settings of Buildings of Architectural and Historic Importance from development which would have a detrimental impact.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Finalised Draft) 2005 (modified 2006/7)
Policy LP ENV 1 – Development Impact on the General Environment
In all Development Control Zones the council will assess applications for planning permission for their impact on the natural, human and built environment. The following general considerations (summarised below) will be taken into account: a) impacts on amenity and the environment as a whole; b) location and nature of the development, including land use, design and appearance; c) access considerations; d) infrastructure considerations; e) water resources; f) government guidance and other development plan policies.
In particular the Council will resist development proposals that would have a significant adverse impact on the integrity or character of designated sites (including nature conservation and landscape designations).
As this policy has been subject to adverse representation, it may only be accorded little weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application, as it is likely to be subject to modification prior to the adoption of the plan. Policy LP ENV 2 – Development Impact on Biodiversity
When considering development proposals the Council will seek to contribute to the delivery of the objectives and targets set by the Local Biodiversity action Plan. Proposals that incorporate existing site interests within the design wherever possible will be encouraged. Where there is evidence to suggest that a habitat or species of local importance exists on a proposed development site, the
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 21
Council will require the applicant, at his/her own expense, to submit a specialist survey of the natural environment. Applications with significant adverse impacts will be refused unless the developer proves to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the following criteria are met: a) There is no suitable alternative site for the development; and b) Satisfactory steps are taken to avoid, mitigate or compensate for damage.
As this policy has not been subject to adverse representation, it may be accorded significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Policy LP ENV 6 – Development Impact on Habitats and Species
In considering development proposals, the Council will give full consideration to the legislation, policies and conservation objectives that may apply to the following: - Habitats and species listed under Annex I, II and IV of the Habitats directive - Species listed under Annex 1 of the Birds Directive; - Species listed on Schedules 1,5 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, (and as amended by the Nature Conservation(Scotland) Act 2004); - Habitats and Species listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan; and - Habitats and Species which are widely regarded as locally important as identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
As this policy has not been subject to adverse representation, it may be accorded significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Policy LP ENV 9 – Development Impact on National Scenic Areas
Development which will have an adverse impact on an NSA’s will be refused, unless the objectives of designation and the integrity of the area will not be compromised or significant adverse effects are outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance.
As this policy has not been subject to adverse representation, it may be accorded significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Policy LP ENV 10 – Development Impact on Areas of Panoramic Quality
Development will be resisted where its sale, location or design has significant adverse effect on the character of the landscape unless significant adverse effects are outweighed by social or economic benefits of national importance. Where acceptable development must conform to Appendix A of the plan.
As this policy has been subject to representation as part of the local plan consultation process, it may only be accorded little weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application, as it may be subject to modification prior to the adoption of the plan.
Policy LP ENV 12 – Water Quality and Environment
Proposals will be assessed in terms of their impact upon water quality and quantity, riparian habitats and wildlife, leisure and recreational facilities, economic activity and the resources protected by policy ENV 1.
As this policy has not been subject to adverse representation, it may be accorded significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Policy LP ENV 16 – Development Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments
There will be a presumption in favour of retaining, protecting, preserving and enhancing Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their setting. Developments that have an adverse impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments and their setting will be resisted.
As this policy has not been subject to adverse representation, it may be accorded significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 22
Policy LP ENV 17 – Development Impact on Sites of Archaeological Importance
Affords protection to archaeological interests and requires measures for the protection. Preservation and recording of those interests.
As this policy has not been subject to adverse representation, it may be accorded significant weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Policy LP REN 1 – Wind Farms over 20MW (Modified August 2007)
Wind farm development over 20MW is not compatible with constrained areas (identified on the proposals map) unless it can be demonstrated that it will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on those interests defining the constrained area. Areas which may have capacity are identified as ‘Areas of Search’ which will be supported unless they have unacceptable direct, indirect or cumulative effects upon the interests listed in the policy.
As this policy has been subject to representation at the Public Local Inquiry into the plan, it may only be accorded limited weight as a material consideration in the determination of this application, as it may be subject to modification prior to the adoption of the plan. However it does represent the most up to date expression of Council policy on the matter.
‘Wind Farm Policy’ 1995
The Council’s Wind Farm Policy 1995 arose from the need to address the complex issues regarding the impact of such developments on the environment and to assist developers in site selection and to indicate the type of information required. This remains relevant, and in the context of this planning application relevant policies include:
Policy WF 1 states that the Council will support wind farms which are consistent with existing development plan policies and of a high quality of design but will resist developments which either cumulatively or individually, would have an adverse impact on the environment by virtue of scale, location, setting or design.
Policy WF 2, other than exceptional circumstances, presumes against windfarm developments in or affecting Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation and Ramsar sites; and National Scenic Areas, SSSI’s and Natural Heritage Areas.
Policies WF 6 and WF 7 seek to resist wind farms within 300m of residential properties or which are likely to result in shadow flicker on occupied premises or be a potential distraction to drivers.
Policy WF 8 states that developments which would have an adverse affect on telecommunications, will be resisted.
Policy WF 9 states that the Council will protect bird species covered by EC Directives by resisting wind farms which are likely to affect the breeding, feeding, roosting and flight areas (ie., areas of caution) of specially protected bird species.
Policy WF11 seeks to minimise long term visual and ecological impact and seeks the developer to enter into a legal agreement and financial bond to secure the highest quality of re-instatement.
Policy WF12 states that wind farms should normally be operational within two years of approval.
Policy WF13 recognises that wind farms are essentially temporary structures and states that the Council will:
• impose conditions of permission to ensure that such sites are fully restored upon the expiry of consent; • seek legal agreements to secure a financial bond to cover such costs; • normally grant permission for an initial period of 20 years.
Note: The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 23
ii) SITE HISTORY
None relevant to this particular site.
iii) CONSULTATIONS
Scottish Government Climate Change Division (24.01.08) - no objection. Notes that mitigation measures are required to protect groundwater, surface waters and especially the River Add, given that it is subject to the EU Fresh Water for Fish Directive as a salmonoid water.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (07.02.08) - requires a condition to be imposed to require the submission of a Construction Method Statement to address various pollution prevention issues, waste management and working within peat areas. Water course crossing details in relation to access tracks and cabling routes are to be agreed in advance. SEPA initially concluded by way of a holding objection, but following the submission of additional details by the applicants, responded further (09.04.08) removing any objection but requiring certain issues to be addressed by way of conditions.
Historic Scotland (27.02.08) - considered that there were uncertainties over the impact of the windfarm upon the setting of a Dun 260m east of Loch Glashan (3.5km from the windfarm) and on Crarae designed landscape (4.0km form the windfarm). The applicants have subsequently produced wireframes/photomontages from these locations in order demonstrate the magnitude of the consequences for these assets. Historic Scotland has subsequently confirmed (23.4.08) that it does not wish to object to the development in terms of its impacts on these historic sites.
Scottish Water - no response, but no objections raised at scoping stage (13.3.07).
Health and Safety Executive - no response, but no objections raised at scoping stage (14.3.07).
West of Scotland Archaeology (14.02.08) - notes that the impact on the setting of the scheduled dun east of Loch Glashan would be greater than indicated in the Environmental Statement should forestry be removed in the future. It is considered that impact on this feature could be of ‘major’ significance and Historic Scotland should be consulted for their view on this. It is considered that there is likelihood of uncovering archaeological interests during construction in this area, notwithstanding past forestry operations, and therefore a condition requiring the submission of a scheme of archaeological investigation, and the implementation of the same, be required by condition.
Area Roads Manager (10.04.08) - no objection to access from A816 at Achnabreck.
Trunk Roads Authority - no response, but no objections raised at scoping stage and no direct access proposed to the A83(T) (29.3.07).
Head of Public Protection (19.2.08) - no objection subject to conditions. The nearest residential properties are 3.8km away at Minard. It is noted that the wilderness character of the bothy at Carron will be affected by noise from the development.
Ofcom (11.02.08) - identifies telecommunications which may be affected by the proposal but does not raise objection.
National Air Traffic Services (31.1.08) - no objection.
Civil Aviation Authority (07.01.08) - no objection.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency (08.01.08) - no objection.
Scottish Natural Heritage (18.04.08) - does not raise objections in relation to landscape, visual or cumulative impact, nor in terms of consequences for golden eagles. SNH would raise objections in relation to effects upon protected species (otter, black grouse and one other species to remain confidential due to vulnerability) unless conditions were to be imposed or legal agreement entered into in order to overcome those concerns. Note: The recommended conditions/legal agreement cover all those issues which SNH wish to see addressed.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 24
RSPB Scotland (04.04.08) - considers that the windfarm is well sited in relation to ornithological interests and raises no objection. It is considered that the forested location constitutes an unimportant habitat resource for eagles despite the proximity of established eagle territory. The formation of cleared ‘keyholes’ in the forest to accommodate turbines could have consequences for hen harrier and black grouse. It would be important to manage these ‘keyholes’ so that they did not become attractive to birds and it would be prudent to create other open/low density planted areas away from the turbines to benefit these species. It would also be advisable to include habitat enhancement around the established Garvacy lek site. It is recommended that any consent be accompanied by a requirement for habitat management/mitigation and monitoring, specifically to address hen harrier and black grouse.
Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society (14.01.08) - no objection
Defence Estates (14.01.08) - no objection.
West Loch Fyne Community Council - no response.
Lochgilphead Community Council - no response.
Ardrishaig Community Council (08.02.08) - no objection.
North Knapdale Community Council - no response.
iv) PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
The proposal has been advertised in the ‘Argyllshire Advertiser’ and the ‘Edinburgh Gazette’ in terms of:
Section 34 (structures over 20 metres in height), Article 9 (vacant land) and under Regulation 13 of the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Regulation 1999 (EIA development) - Closing Date: 1st February 2008
Two letters of support, one letter confirming no objection, one letter of objection and one letter expressing concerns have been received as follows:
Mr A Ohnstadt and Ms A Nebreda of 10 Linnet Court, Ardrishaig (letters dated 25.01.08) have written to express support for the proposal.
ArgyllWindFarms.com (18.01.08) have written to state that they do not wish to object to the proposal, but that this should not be construed as an expression of support.
Mr and Mrs J Burns, No.13 Chalet, Eas-Mhor, Strathlachlan, Cairndow (letter dated 25.01.08) have objected to the proposal on the grounds that it will adversely impact on the local landscape.
The Argyll Raptor Study Group c/o Mr D Walker, 5 Naddlegate, Burnbanks, Penrith (letter dated 06.02.08) has expressed the following concerns about the proposal. The site is located in proximity to eagle nest sites and foraging areas. The development poses a risk of collisions and may influence eagle ranging activities which in turn could have consequences for future breeding performance. It is suggested that further investigation into the range use of eagles in this locality should be undertaken before the application is determined.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 25
APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 07/02387/DET
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
The proposal
The application relates to an upland area separating the west coast of Loch Fyne from the east coast of Loch Awe, approximately 10km north-east of Lochgilphead. In a more local context, the site is situated some 5 km to the west of the village of Minard and 1.5km north of Loch Glashan. The site lies 10km south of the nearest consented windfarm at An Suidhe, by Inveraray, which is currently under construction. It comprises 800 hectares of land forming part of the extensive 80 sq. km. Kilmichael Forest; an area of mainly sitka spruce plantation owned by the Forestry Commission and managed by Forest Enterprise. The site comprises commercial forestry of varying ages, with some clear-felled areas. Land to the south and west of the site is exclusively commercial forest. To the north and east there is open hill land for several kilometres, leading onto further forestry beyond on more upland ground. The forested areas contain extensive walking and cycling routes.
The proposed turbines are to be situated in two clusters separated by the intervening valley of the upper River Add and its tributaries. The river is at a level of about 130 metres AOD. The turbine clusters are to be situated on two NE-SW aligned ridges. The northernmost of these is the A’Chruach – Meall Reamhan ridge, at about 300 metres AOD. This has not been subject to any forestry felling to date. The southern cluster is to be located on the Airigh Ard ridge, at about 230 metres AOD, where systematic felling and restructuring is already taking place under an approved Forest Design Plan. The proposal is to maintain the site in use for commercial forestry, by inserting the turbines within 90m by 125m clearings known as ‘keyholes’. The retention of forestry about the turbines will have consequences in terms of wind speed, turbulence and wind sheer, which means that surrounding plantations cannot be allowed to continue to grow to optimum commercial heights. Therefore, a programme of short-rotation forestry (i.e. premature felling) is proposed, once trees have reached a height of 12 metres, followed by replanting of all areas other than the ‘keyholes’ and associated access corridors. Replanting will be in accordance with the principles of the existing Forest Design Plan, and will incorporate more diverse conifer species, an increased proportion of native broadleaves and additional open ground.
There are no nature conservation or historic environment designations within the site. The nearest residential properties are at Strone and Garvachy Farm approximately 3 km away from the proposed windfarm.
Access to the site is proposed to be taken from the A816 Lochgilphead – Oban road at Achanabreck,, via an improvement of the existing principal forestry access route serving the Kilmichael Forest. The construction compound and the control building would be sited within the southern cluster of turbines. On-site access tracks would trend generally SW-NE along both ridges to serve both clusters, with spurs serving individual turbine locations.
The detailed layout of the site has been dictated by the following factors:
- The need to respect potential Black Grouse nesting areas; - Avoidance of potential Golden Eagle habitat; - Safeguarding of watercourses and the aquatic environment; - Avoidance of blanket bog and steep slopes; - The need to respect the setting of the Carron Bothy; - Visual considerations.
Three on-site borrow pits are envisaged to provide an on-site source of stone to serve the needs of construction. These would be the subject of separate mineral planning consent applications. Cabling on the site would be underground following the alignment of access tracks wherever possible. The site would be connected to the grid by way of an underground link to an existing 132kv transmission line to the east of the site .
The construction period for the project is estimated at being 12 months following 2 years of initial forestry operations. Felling operations are expected to take place in 2010 and 2011, with construction of the windfarm taking place in 2012. The windfarm would have a design life of 25 years .
In view of the fact that lengthy forestry operations need precede the construction and commissioning of the windfarm, exceptionally, it will be necessary to allow five years for the implementation of a consent, rather than the three year period usually allowed by the Council for a windfarm to become operational.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 26
Renewable energy policy
In considering this proposal, in addition to having regard to local environmental issues, it is necessary to have regard to those macro-environmental factors which are material considerations in assessing the acceptability of renewable energy developments. UK energy policy has its most up to date expression in the Energy White Paper 2003, which sets a long term goal of reducing UK CO 2 emissions by 60% by 2050, in order to address global warming and climate change. In Scotland, the Renewable Obligation (Scotland) Order 2005 requires electricity suppliers to provide 18% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, with an aspirational target of 40% by 2020. The Scottish Government Spending Review 2007 increased the renewable energy target for Scotland to 31% by 2011 and 50% by 2020. Given that Scotland is estimated to have 20% of the European wind resource, it is important that wind energy should be exploited where it does not compromise other overriding environmental considerations. The current application proposal would have an installed capacity of 46 MW, which would be likely to yield an average output sufficient to meet the electricity needs of over 25,000 homes over its design life of 25 years.
The annual CO 2 savings attributable to the windfarm proposed, are calculated to be 34,000 tonnes (compared with a gas generated source) or 117,000 tonnes (compared with a ‘clean’ coal generated source). The ‘payback period’ for the energy which will be consumed in the manufacture and construction of the windfarm, and for CO 2 emissions released as a consequence, is estimated to be less than 1 year in both cases.
In terms of national planning policy, SPP 6 (revised 2007) emphasises the importance of Scotland’s renewable resource to the UK as a whole, and acknowledges that despite developmental work in other areas, most new capacity will be expected to come from commercial windfarms. There is therefore a presumption that where renewable energy can be exploited without significant adverse implications for the local environment, wind power development should be considered favourably. Only in circumstances where there is clear evidence that developments would impinge to an unacceptable degree on the historic environment or natural heritage assets (including landscape), or would have unacceptable consequences for local communities or other matters of importance, should local considerations outweigh the need to address national and international climate change policy commitments and obligations.
The proposal falls to assessed against the policies of the adopted structure plan and the Mid Argyll local plan, the advice given in Planning Advice Note 45, and the recently update national policy on renewable energy as expressed in SPP 6. It is not appropriate to give any significant weight to the most recent expression of Council policy on windfarms over 20 MW as expressed in Policy REN 1 of the emergent 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Modified Finalised Draft) 2007, as this has been the subject of representation at the recent Public Local Inquiry into the plan and may be subject to revision prior to the final adoption of the plan. Other uncontested policies in the draft plan, which will not be subject to future modification, remain relevant to the determination of the application.
The adopted Mid Argyll Local Plan was produced in advance of the development of commercial wind farms, and therefore it does not have policies relating specifically to the siting of wind turbines It does, however, through policies RUR 1 and 2 exert influence over developments which would have undesirable effects on scenic areas, and nature conservation interests, particularly in the case of designated sites.
The adopted Structure Plan, through Policy STRAT RE 1, reflects government policy in expressing support for the development of windfarms provided that they do not have adverse consequences for landscape assets, the historic environment, nature conservation interests, local communities or telecommunications installations. In addition to statutory policy, the Council’s 1995 ‘Wind Farm Policy’ still remains relevant, and may be considered in conjunction with the more recently adopted structure plan policies.
The structure plan indicates that through the local plan process, the Council will seek to identify specific areas of search for future wind power developments. Contested emergent local plan Policy REN 1 (with accompanying map) identifies both ‘areas of search’ and ‘constrained areas’ for wind power developments. The policy cannot bbe accorded significant weight at this point in the local plan preparation process. Nonetheless it represents the most recent expression of Council policy on the matter. For the record, the modified plan includes the majority of the site within an ‘area of search’, within which there is conditional support for windfarms of over 20 MW. subject to specified environmental criteria being satisfied.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 27
The Environmental Statement
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, the purpose of which is to identify any significant effects on the environment arising from the development proposed, to assess the magnitude of those effects, and the extent to which they can be avoided or mitigated as part of the design and implementation process.
The key issues arising from the environmental statement summarised and commented upon below, and form the structure of the assessment of the environmental aspects of the proposal:
A) Landscape and visual considerations
The site lies within a forested area on high ground separating Loch Awe from Loch Fyne. It forms part of a wider area of elevated landscape of open moorland and forestry, with increasing elevation to the north. It falls within the ‘Upland Forest Moor Mosaic’ landscape character type which forms an unpopulated backdrop to the inhabited coastal margins, and is in itself, an area of diversity and interest, with value for recreation and for its sense of relative remoteness. Commercial forestry and the cyclical harvesting and replanting of trees exert a considerable influence on the area resulting in a dynamic, changing landscape.
The location has been prompted by the absence of any landscape designation in respect of the site Nonetheless, the introduction of a large scale windfarm in an elevated location would be expected to have significant visual impact upon the surrounding area. However in this case, the effect of topography around the site is such that it is afforded considerable screening. The proposal has progressed through a series of iterations balancing the potential landscape and visual effects and other environmental considerations, with the need to occupy an area of sufficient wind yield. The development would give rise to a variety of consequences as a result of ‘keyhole’ felling, forest restructuring based on short-rotation, and the presence of the turbines themselves. Whilst the magnitude of change will be significant, the sensitivity of the receiving environment is relatively low and therefore the impact during both construction and operation are assessed in the Environmental Statement to be of ‘medium’ magnitude.
An examination of the consequences of the development for adjoining landscape character types, surrounding landscape designations and transport routes has been carried out, with 26 representative viewpoints having been assessed. In addition, consideration has been given to cumulative impacts associated with other consented or proposed windfarm developments. It is concluded that the landscape consequences for the more mountainous areas and the high tops to the north and north east will be ‘slight’, given that the windfarm will only be visible from high points and in panoramic views at considerable distances. The windfarm will have consequences for the ‘upland forest moor mosaic’ character type within which it is to be located, with ‘moderate’ impacts on the upland areas to the west of Loch Fyne closest to the site, ‘low’ impacts in respect of land to the east of the loch, and ‘slight’ impacts in respect of land to the south of Lochgilphead, moderated by the effect of distance and more restricted visibility.
There are no effects identified on road, canal or ferry routes, other than for ‘slight’ localised impacts on the A83(T) and the A886. In terms of areas designated for their landscape importance, ’moderate’ localised effects are identified on the East Loch Fyne Regional Scenic Area and ‘slight’ localised effects on the Knapdale National Scenic Area. Significantly there are no impacts upon the Loch Awe Area of Local Landscape Importance, or on any designed landscapes other than Ballimore (Cowal), where the impact is assessed as ‘slight’.
Of the 26 assessed representative viewpoints, 3 are rated as being ‘substantially’ affected, 2 as ‘moderately’ affected, and the remainder either ‘slightly’ affected or not at all. The most affected viewpoints are at relatively close quarters, i.e. Loch Glashan Picnic Site (4.2km) to the south of the site, the Carron Bothy (1.0km) and Tom Soillier (2.7km) to the north. ‘Moderate’ impact is attributed to the view from the Dunardry viewpoint above the canal at Cairnbaan at a distance in excess of 12km.
The documented and mapped ‘zone of theoretical visibility’ and the accompanying photomontages from representative viewpoints confirms that the windfarm has only limited visibility in the wider landscape, primarily as a result of topography. The most significant impact will be at relatively close quarters view from unpopulated but visited locations to the north and south of the site. Some visibility will also be achieved from the elevated land above the east coast of Loch Fyne, from the northern edge of Knapdale, from Loch Fyne itself and from localised areas on its west coast, and from elevated viewpoints within the more distant landscape.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 28
In their appraisal of the Environmental Statement, Scottish Natural Heritage considers that there will be some local adverse landscape consequences for Loch Fyne, Loch Glashan and the Carron Bothy, but due to the good ‘fit’ of the windfarm with the landscape, successful back clothing and the fact that often only one of the two turbine clusters will be visible, the development will not have significant wider landscape or visual amenity consequences.
B) Cumulative impacts
In terms of cumulative impacts, the proposal has been assessed in terms of consented windfarms to the north of the site, those across Loch Fyne in Cowal and those to the south in Kintyre, as well as some further flung sites in Ayrshire. There are limited locations from which the proposal would be appreciated in the context of a sequence of windfarms, although from the east of Loch Fyne, the proposal can be considered in sequence to the consented site at An Suidhe to the north (23km), although this is widely separated and in a more upland context than the application site, which is at a lower level. Other consented or application sites are sufficiently distant from the site not to give rise to cumulative consequences, The absence of adverse sequential or cumulative impacts, when taken with the relatively contained landscape and visual impacts considered above, would indicate that the site is favourably located for windpower development.
Scottish Natural Heritage considers that the refusal of the Allt Dearg windfarm (Inverneill) has significantly reduced potential cumulative impacts within the Loch Fyne region, concentrating development in the north western area. An Suidhe (Inveraray) and this proposal will be seen as two distinct developments, with the former being the more prominent as it breaks the skyline more regularly. SNH does not consider that the proposal gives rise to significant adverse cumulative impacts.
C) Ecology
The site comprises predominantly sitka sprce plantation of varying ages, with a low percentage of other mainly conifer species. Residual areas comprise mainly forest rides, river corridors, rocky or peaty areas unsuited to siviculture. There are some clear-felled areas to the south of the site where restructuring is taking place under an approved Forest Design Plan; which envisages all the existing trees within the site being felled in the design life of the windfarm. The River Add bisects the site along with the Carron Burn and numerous smaller tributaries. There are two very localised blanket bog areas; although where peat is present it only occurs in shallow deposits. The site is not subject to, or within close influence of, any European or national nature conservation designation. In view of the preponderance of conifer plantation, the site is predominantly of low nature conservation and biodiversity value. There is a small area of mixed semi-natural woodland along the River Add corridor, some wet areas associated with peat, and some acidic grassland along the Carron Burn, which are of limited ecological interest.
In terms of species, badger, water vole, pine martin, wildcat, otter, red squirrels, bats and butterflies are present in the general area, although not all have been confirmed as being present within the site itself. These species are of conservation value and would be susceptible to disturbance from construction and operation of the windfarm. Much of the consequence for these species would derive from the tree felling and forest restructuring proposals associated with the development. It should be noted however, that firstly, disturbance would arise in the normal course of events from forest operations, and secondly, most of these species are predominantly nocturnal, when disturbance from construction would be limited. The total land- take of the development would only result in the loss of 2% of the site’s habitat. The Environmental Statement concludes that the most significant ecological consequence of the development as a whole would be the loss of some foraging habitat for red squirrels.
The upper Add and its tributaries are recognised of importance for the spawning of trout and salmon. The Add is recorded as Grade A1 by Scottish Environment Protection Agency and capable of supporting a sustainable fish population. It is a Freshwater Fish Directive Salmonid Water under the jurisdiction of the Argyll Fisheries Trust. Such quality freshwater habitat is susceptible to silt run-off and sedimentation as a consequence of construction and transportation, and therefore mitigation and careful site management is required in order to avoid any deterioration in water quality.
Mitigation measures would be employed, such as avoidance of the more ecologically sensitive areas (blanket bog/riparian habitat/ancient woodland), the implementation of a mammal protection plan, the employment of an Ecological Clerk of Works, and long-term retention of tree stands suitable as red squirrel territory. In particular, it is intended to maintain a 20 metre buffer zone from all watercourses, and a 50 metre zone in the
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 29
case of the River Add and the Carron Burn. Operations likely to mobilise sediments would be limited to months which would not be especially sensitive in terms of the life-cycle of aquatic species.
Scottish Natural Heritage considers that the proposal would have adverse ecological consequences for protected species which frequent the area unless conditions were to be imposed to overcome those concerns. In the absence of such conditions SNH would object to the proposal. Their requirements are therefore met in full by the conditions listed in this report.
D) Ornithology
The potential impacts upon ornithological interests are a primary consideration in the acceptability of windfarms. The presence of extensive conifer plantation is, of course, a major influence on the ornithological value of this particular site. There are no European or national ornithological designations in relation to the application site. The Environmental Statement indicates the presence in the locality of Black-throated Diver, Red-throated Diver, Golden Eagle, Merlin, Hen Harrier, and Black Grouse, but the Environmental Statement concludes that disturbance to these species should not be ‘significant’.
The closest breeding loch for Red-throated Diver is 700 metres from the site and there are likely to be flights across it. For Black-throated Diver, the nearest breeding loch is 1.6km away and there are unlikely to be flights over the site. It is concluded that Hen Harrier are unlikely to use the site in the breeding season, but they do frequent the surrounding area. The site lies on the periphery of Golden Eagle territory with five nest locations between 2 and 5 km. away. It is concluded that the site is of little, if any, importance to eagles. There is a small population of Black Grouse in the vicinity, but activity is recorded as sparse on the clear- felled area. There is no record of Merlin making use of the site during the breeding period.
Whilst the development would only account for a very small proportion of the habitat across the site, there would be consequences from the areas of forestry required to be cleared to provide ‘keyholes’ for individual turbines and access routes, and the premature felling associated with the need to move to short rotation forestry activities on surrounding areas. Almost 200 hectares of forestry would require to be felled in advance of normal commercial maturity. Whilst this would not impact on bird species of nature conservation importance, it would have adverse consequences for other species, such as Crossbill.
Possible consequences from the operation of the windfarm are disturbance and collision. It is concluded that consequences for Divers will be negligible given that most will commute away from the site towards Loch Awe. Hen Harriers that cross the site would do so below rotor swept level. Given the proposed forest restructuring proposals, insufficient open ground from deforestation would arise to promote colonisation, and it is likely that they would continue to make little, if any, use of the site. In terms of Black Grouse, the displacement effect is anticipated to be low, and low flight levels would reduce the likelihood of collisions. Areas recorded as having been used for lekking are several hundred metres away from the nearest turbine.
No remedial works are identified to mitigate potential effects on birds from construction or operation of the windfarm or from the associated forestry activities. Nonetheless a monitoring programme to record breeding activity and collisions is proposed.
In response, the RSPB considers take ‘keyholing’ operations are likely to have consequences for hen harrier and black grouse unless felling operations are managed in such a way to deter birds from felled areas, and that there would be advantage in some off-site habitat management measures in order to provide for these species.
Both Scottish Natural Heritage and the RSPB have concerns as to the consequences of the development for black grouse. In order to address this, habitat enhancement/management is required within the area within the application site which will be subject to short rotation forestry operations, in order that these are conducted in such a manner as to benefit this particular species. The RSPB has also suggested that some off-site mitigation measures would be desirable, such as around the Garvachy lek site. However, as this land lies on the Ederline estate, rather than on land in the control of the Forestry Commission, this would not be readily achievable and SNH considers that in the circumstances it would be an unduly onerous requirement.
E) Hydrology and Hydrogeology
The construction period (and decommissioning) is most likely to give rise to implications for the water environment, particularly in connection with the formation of access tracks and turbine bases. However, no
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 30
important adverse consequences for water resources are identified, subject to prudent construction practice and appropriate mitigation measures being employed, as identified in the Environmental Statement. Consequences for the water environment are considered by the Environmental Statement not to be ‘significant’, as there are no particularly sensitive features within the site, and risk from pollution and sedimentation can be avoided by appropriate mitigation measures during construction.
There is only one water abstraction within the site; serving Loch Glashan, and in turn, the Loch Gair hydro power station. The nearest residential property to the site with a private water supply is 2.7 km from the site boundary. In view of the characteristics of the low permeability of the rock found within this area, groundwater contamination will not be an issue.
Buffer zones to watercourses are to be adhered to, both for ecological and pollution control purposes. Areas of blanket bog and wet flush are to be avoided and no new watercourse crossings are proposed. Temporary reinforcement of existing forest road crossings by bailey bridges will be employed.
Mitigation measures will include avoidance of hydrologically sensitive locations, a Construction Management Plan including pollution control measures, and the laying of cable trenches along access tracks wherever possible.
SEPA have raised issues concerning construction management and the control of pollution which are able to be addressed by appropriate conditions.
F) Cultural Heritage
There are no Scheduled Ancient Monuments or listed structure within the site. There are however some non- statutorily protected features of archaeological interest, including the remains of a pre-improvement settlement at Auchleck and and farmbuildings/shelings/sheepfold at Carron.
There are 23 Scheduled Ancient Monuments (forts/duns/stones) within 15 km which could have theoretical visibility of one or more turbines, and 13 listed buildings; including the Grade A Lachlan Castle, 7km away. Actual visibility will be influenced by the localised effects of topography, buildings and trees.
The presence of the windfarm is not anticipated to have a significant visual impact in respect of any scheduled or listed asset, primarily due to intervening forestry, and distance. The only non-statutory sites predicted to have a significant impact on their settings will be:
- The Carron Standing stone (SMR non-statutory) on the River Add, 2km SW of Carron and 0.7km from the nearest turbine; - Allt an Dubhair Fort (SMR non-statutory), 0.9km west of Feorlin and 0.9km from the nearest turbine.
These sites are, of course, already compromised to a degree by the presence of extensive afforestation.
The sparse distribution of recorded sites, and previous agricultural and forestry use of the land, means that there is limited potential for the presence of prehistoric remains. Sites along access routes are already known to the forest operators and have been preserved in situ. The site is accordingly considered to be of low archaeological importance. However a scheme of archaeological investigation and mitigation is proposed in order to address any features of historic value which may arise.
Neither Historic Scotland nor WOSAS object to the development proposed.
G) Noise, air quality and shadow flicker
Standards for operational noise from windfarms are recommended in Planning Advice Note 45. These are derived from Department of Trade and Industry guidance on ‘The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Windfarms’ (ETSU-R-97). This suggests that where predicted noise levels will be low at the nearest residential properties, noise should be limited to an L A90 level of 35 dB(A). The nearest residential properties in this case are around 3km away, and none fall within this noise contour. The highest predicted noise would be at Garvachy (30.6dB(A), whilst noise levels at Minard village (where ambient noise levels will be higher) would only be between 27 and 29 dB(A).
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 31
The closest building to the site would be the Carron Bothy, which is not permanently occupied, but is in periodic overnight use by walkers. The nearest turbine would be almost 1km from this building. The predicted 39.5 dB L A90 level at this building would be below the recommended minimum night time noise limit of 43 dB(A), to ensure protection from sleep disturbance. (As an element of ‘planning gain’, the windfarm developer has agreed to make a financial contribution to the Mountain Bothy Association towards the upkeep and improvement of the Carron Bothy, in recognition of the impact of the proposal on the wider landscape setting of this building).
The Environmental Statement concludes that predicted operational noise levels for the layout and turbine type proposed meet recognised standards in terms of night time noise limits and the lower amenity hours noise limits in all circumstances.
It is not anticipated that construction noise will be significant at this site, other than for traffic associated noise. Likewise, given the distance to residential receptors and the high rainfall in the locality, dust propagation will not pose an amenity issue. Mitigation measures will be included in the Construction Management Plan in order to protect surface waters and vegetation. In view of the distance between buildings and the turbines, these will be out of range of the potential disturbing effect of shadow flicker.
The Head of Public Protection has recommended appropriate conditions to address noise considerations.
H) Access and traffic
The existing forest access onto the A83(T) at Birdfield would not be used for construction purposes. Construction and operational access would be taken exclusively from the A816 Lochgilphead – Oban road at Achnabreck near Cairnbaan. This utilises a forestry standard access with good junction visibility and geometry with the public road. This would be upgraded to cater for abnormal loads over the 10km length up to the site.
Due to the intended sourcing of construction aggregate from on-site borrow pits, unnecessary vehicle movements will be avoided, although 6,000m 3 of concrete and 4,000 tonnes of sand will require to be imported, along with turbine components, associated equipment, and mobile cranes.
The traffic flow over the pre-development forestry phase would be expected to amount to 16 HGV visits per day. During the construction of the windfarm, it is estimated that there would be 160 abnormal loads within 600 HGV visits in all; peaking at 27 HGV’s per day over a 40 day period at the height of construction activities. For the remainder of the 12 month construction period, traffic flows would average 6 HGV and 38 light vehicle visits per day. The additional vehicle movements associated with the project are not significant in terms of the traffic capacity of the A816. A temporary wheel wash is proposed to be installed at the junction to prevent debris being carried out onto the public road. Construction times are intended to be limited to 0700 – 1900 Mondays-Fridays and 0700-1600 on Saturdays.
The Council’s Roads Engineers are satisfied that the access arrangements to the site from the public road are acceptable.
I) Tourism and Socio-Economic Effects
The surrounding area contains key recreation and tourism assets including the Kilmichael Forest, Loch Fyne, the Crinan Canal and Kilmartin Glen. The Environmental Statement concludes that the presence of the windfarm will not act as a deterrent to tourists, and a number of studies are referred to in support of this assertion. A tourist study undertaken by the applicants in August 2007 (110 respondents) concluded that whilst 22% felt that the presence of a windfarm would leave them with a more negative impression of the area, only 2% felt that it would impact on their willingness to revisit the area.
There is one public right of way passing through the site immediately to the south of the northernmost cluster of turbines. This former drove route follows the course of the River Add, providing a long-distance link between Achnabreck and Auchindrain, via the Carron Bothy. There is public use of tracks through other parts of the surrounding Kilmichael Forest for walking and cycle use. Picnic facilities are available at Loch Glashan and below Tom Soillier on the Auchindrain – Loch Awe Forest Drive. The presence of the windfarm will exert some negative influence upon all of these facilities, by reason of the introduction of such a scale of development within an area which, despite extensive afforestation, still retains a feeling of solitude and relative wildness.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 32
This £55m project is expected to directly contribute £7 to the Argyll economy during construction, producing 20 full-time equivalent jobs locally during the construction phase and 9 during the operational phase. J) Telecommunication and Aviation Interests
The site does not lie within aviation safeguarded areas. Micrositing has protected identified telecommunications links crossing the site. No adverse impacts are identified and no objections have been raised by aviation or telecommunication interests.
E:\MODERNGOV\DATA\AGENDAITEMDOCS\2\3\0\AI00040032\07023387WRRK1004080.DOC
Page 33 Page 34
This page is intentionally left blank Page 35
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ward Number - 3 Mid Argyll PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 28 th December 2007 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS Committee Date - 7th May 2008 ______
Reference Number: 08/00089/DET Applicants Name: Northern Energy Developments Ltd. Application Type: Detailed Planning Permission Application Description: Development of a wood fired combined heat and power plant Location: Land north-east of E McGinty Ltd, Achnabreck, Cairnbaan ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Erection of 5MW biomass power plant comprising boiler and turbine house (32m x 21m and 21m high) and stack (24m high), automated wood chip feed system and cooling plant; • External storage and handling area; • Access from forestry haul route; • Weighbridge and associated cabin; • Staff welfare cabin.
(ii) Other specified operations.
• Connection to public water supply; • Grid connection via overhead line (subject to separate consent). ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and reasons attached, as a minor variation to draft local plan policy, given that a electricity generation plant does not constitute a Class 5 or 6 industrial/storage use for which the site has been allocated.
______
(C) SUMMARY OF DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Development Plan Context:
The site forms part of an industrial allocation (BI-AL 12/2) situated in a rural location identified by the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006. There have been no objections to this allocation as part of the local plan process, and it may therefore be accorded material weight. The purpose of this allocation is to provide sites suitable for commercial operations which are unsuited to conventional industrial locations within the urban area, and the allocation particularly lends itself to development related to forestry activities. The development proposed is a sui generis use which does not fall within use classes 5 or 6. It does, however, share most of the attributes of a general industrial use in terms of its processes and transport requirements.
Draft local plan Policy REN 4 supports biomass electricity generation in locations outside settlements and designated nature conservation sites, subject to environmental, servicing and access considerations being acceptable. Principal considerations in this case are in terms of Policy ENV 16 (setting of ancient monuments) and BAD 1 (bad neighbour consequences in terms of noise and air quality).
Page 36
(ii) Representations:
Three letters of objection and have been received, the content of which is summarised in the report.
(iii) Consideration of the Need for Non-Statutory or PAN 41 Hearing:
Not required given the absence of a significant number of representations.
(iv) Reasoned Justification for a Departure to the Provisions of the Development Plan.
Not relevant.
(v) Is the Proposal a Schedule 1 or 2 EIA development:
Installations for the production of electricity occupying a site area of 0.5 hectare require screening as Schedule 2 projects, as the requirement for an Environmental Statement is discretionary. This 2 hectare site was the subject of a ‘screening opinion’ issued following consultation with appropriate bodies by the Council in 2006, which concluded that the characteristics of the development and the sensitivity of the receiving environment were not such as to warrant the requirement for an Environmental Statement.
(vi) Does the Council have an interest in the site:
No.
(vii) Need and Reason for Notification to Scottish Ministers.
None.
(viii) Has a sustainability Checklist Been Submitted:
Yes.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 25 th April 2008
Author: Richard Kerr Date: 24 th April 2008
NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in Appendix A, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
Page 37
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 08/00089/DET
1. The development to which this application relates must be begun within five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.
2. No development shall be commenced until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority following consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the duly approved CMS.
Reason: In order to ensure that construction activities have regard to pollution control and amenity considerations.
3. No development shall be commenced until a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) Scheme has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority following consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This shall have regard to the provisions of the outline drainage assessment submitted with the application and shall seek to minimise surface water run-off from the site. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions of the duly approved scheme.
Reason: In the interests of securing appropriate means of drainage in order to avoid flooding.
4. No development shall be commenced until a Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority following consultation with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. This shall address the intended means of dealing with waste arising during the construction process and during the operational phase of the development. The development shall be implemented and operated in accordance with the provisions of the duly approved management plan.
Reason: In the interests of waste minimisation and pollution control.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, samples and/or full details of the materials/colour finishes to be applied to the boiler/turbine building, the cooling plant, chimney, wood chip handling equipment and portable buildings shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. These shall comprise recessive colours appropriate to a forested location. The development shall be completed in accordance with the duly approved details and shall be retained as such unless any subsequent variation thereof is agreed in advance in writing by the Council as Planning Authority.
Reason: In order to help assimilate the development into its landscape setting in the interests of visual amenity.
6. Notwithstanding the details shown in the application, all emissions from the combined heat and power plant shall discharge from a chimney which shall not exceed, nor be less than, an overall height of 24.0 metres.
Reason: In order to ensure that chimney height is limited to that necessary to safeguard air quality, in the interests of visual amenity.
7. Prior to commencement of development, a finished floor level for the boiler/turbine building relative to a fixed datum outside the application site shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Planning Authority. This shall have regard to the cut/fill operations indicated on cross- section drawing number HG336/PA/F/15B and the development shall be implemented in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In order to minimise the overall height of the building relative to surrounding ground levels in the interests of visual amenity.
Page 38
8. A shelter belt of a minimum depth of 15.0 metres shall be maintained along the site frontage with the forest road serving the site, in the location annotated on drawing number HG336/PA/F/11. This shall be fenced off and protected from damage for the full duration of construction activities on the site. Within three months of the plant being commissioned, a programme for the selective felling, management and re-stocking of this area, using diversified species to secure its long-term value as an effective screen, shall be submitted for the written approval of the Council as Planning Authority. Thereafter this shelter belt shall be retained and managed in accordance with the duly approved programme.
Reason: In order to ensure tree management and replacement in the interests of visual amenity.
9. The levels of noise arising from the operation of the combined heat and power plant shall not exceed the existing background noise levels identified in the Noise Assessment Report ISO40- 01/PL/LQ (April 2008) when measured at the boundaries of ‘Leaside’ and ‘Dunamuck Cottage’ and measured in terms of LAeq rated in accordance with BS4142:1997.
Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance to nearby properties.
10. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the protection of the nearest residential properties from noise shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority. This scheme shall include details of the sound insulation to be provided on the western and southern elevations of the boiler/turbine building to achieve the noise limits specified in condition 9 above, and shall provide for the erection of an acoustic barrier along the southern boundary of the development site. The development shall not be implemented and operated otherwise than in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the terms of the permission.
11. Prior to the commencement of operation of the combined heat and power plant, a noise assessment plan shall be submitted and approved by the Council as Planning Authority which shall include details of the monitoring to be carried out in order to ensure compliance with conditions 9 and 10 above.
Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance to nearby properties.
12. No primary wood chipping operations shall be permitted on the site. The small scale chipping of oversized wood chips shall be permitted, but shall only take place between the hours of 0700 and 18000 hours Mondays to Fridays, excluding Scottish public holidays.
Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance to nearby properties.
13. The hours of all collections and deliveries, and on-site external operations including the handling and loading of woodchips, shall be limited to 0700 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays, excluding Scottish public holidays.
Reason: In order to prevent noise disturbance to nearby properties.
14. The development shall only operate with the abatement equipment, including the electrostatic precipitator, in operation. In the event of failure of any abatement plant, the operator shall cease the combustion process as soon as reasonably practicable and the process shall not recommence until the abatement plant has returned to full working order.
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and the protection of local air quality.
15. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the wood chip storage arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Planning Authority, and the development shall not be operated other than in accordance with the duly approved details.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
Page 39
16. Prior to work starting on site, full details of any external lighting to be used within the site and along its access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such information shall include full details of the location, type and angle of direction and wattage of each light, which shall be so positioned and angled to prevent any glare or light spillage outwith the site boundary. For the purposes of this condition, any external lighting installations shall be designed to confirm with Scottish Executive Guidance Note Controlling Light Pollution and Reducing Lighting Energy Consumption.
Reason: In order to avoid the potential of light pollution infringing on surrounding land uses/properties.
Page 40
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/00089/DET
MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ADVICE
(i) POLICY OVERVIEW AND MATERIAL ADVICE
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT SI 1 – requires development proposals to adhere to sustainability principles including inter alia energy efficiency, maximising use of existing infrastructure, conservation of landscape, natural and heritage resources, and avoidance of adverse effects on air and water quality.
STRAT DC 8 – seeks to avoid development which damages the landscape character of an area.
STRAT DC 9 – seeks to avoid development which undermines the historic or cultural qualities of the historic environment.
STRAT RE 2 – supports renewable energy development, including, biomass, other than exceptional cases, where development would affect designated nature conservation sites, or where development would be within a settlement. Proposals will be assessed against landscape, nature conservation, safety, amenity and access considerations, and availability of grid connection.
‘Mid Argyll Local Plan’ 1985 and 1989
STRAT 3 – development with a locational need related to primary industries, including forestry, may be located within the countryside.
POL IND 2 – encourages development relating to the processing of the produce of indigenous primary industries.
POL RUR 1 and 2 – sets out criteria against which developments affecting National Scenic Areas should be assessed (N.B The site does not lie within the NSA but will be visible from elevated locations within it).
POL PU 2 – Guards against development which would create local pollution problems.
POL BE 1A – affords protection to the sites and settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments and other sites of archaeological importance.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft), June 2006
LP ENV 1 – Sets out the criteria against which the Council will assess planning applications for their impact on both the natural, human and built environment.
LP ENV 9 – Development adjacent to a National Scenic Area with a significant adverse effect will be refused unless the overall integrity of the area will not be compromised or there are overriding economic and social benefits of national importance.
LP ENV 16 – Requires development to respect the settings of Scheduled Ancient Monuments.
LP ENV 19 – Requires development to be of a high standard of appropriate design.
LP BUS 2 – supports ‘small scale’ business development in the countryside development control zones and ‘medium scale’ development where an operational need is demonstrated for a rural location. In the case of this application, which is for a ‘medium scale’ development, the Page 41
site forms part of 4.29 hectares of land at Achnabreck which is specifically allocated in Appendix F of the plan for industrial/storage development (Allocation BI-AL 12/2).
LP BAD 1 – ‘bad neighbour’ developments will only be permitted if there are no unacceptable adverse effects upon residential amenity, appropriate mitigation measures are included and access and servicing arrangements are satisfactory.
REN 4 – non-wind renewable energy projects, including biomass, are encouraged in locations where they will sustain local economies. The principle of this form of development will be supported unless the development is within settlements or designated nature conservation sites or there are unacceptable environmental, servicing, access or electricity distribution consequences,
LP TRAN 4 – Sets out the Council’s policy in respect of new and existing public roads and private access regimes.
Appendix A – Sets out the Council’s ‘Sustainable Siting and Design Principles.
Note (i): The applicable elements of the above Policies have not been objected to or have no unresolved material planning issues and are therefore material planning considerations. The exception to this is Policy ENV 1, the wording of which has been contested as part of the Local Plan consultation process, and may only be accorded limited weight until the outcome of the Public Local Inquiry is known.
Note (ii): The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(ii) SITE HISTORY
None relevant
(iii) CONSULTATIONS
Scottish Natural Heritage (25.03.08) – expresses support for the proposal. No wildlife interests or nature conservation designations are affected. The site does not lie in any landscape designation (it lies to the south and east of the Knapdale National Scenic Area). The plant and chimney will be visible locally but retention of trees within the site and long-term management of surrounding forestry will help to screen this. It is concluded that the landscape and visual impacts will be localised. Support is expressed for renewable energy projects which will have low natural heritage consequences, as in this case (which, it is pointed out, will have the equivalent generating capacity of 15 1 MW wind turbines – as it will be three times as efficient as intermittent generation from wind power).
Forestry Commission (01.04.08) – have confirmed that the agreed management plan for the conifer plantation around the site is to provide continuous cover, and as such, there will not be clearfelling at any time. This long-term management in their opinion would continue to provide good screening for the site.
Roads (21.01.08) – no objection. The site is served by a principal forest road which also serves an adjacent haulage depot. The junction with the public road is surfaced and of appropriate geometry.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (25.02.08) – will not require site licensing as the timber to be consumed by the plant is not being deemed to be ‘waste’. Foul drainage arrangements are to be agreed by SEPA. Surface water is to be dealt with in accordance with SuDs principles and a holding objection is lodged pending submission of details in this regard. Page 42
A condition is required in respect of the submission of a site waste management plan. Further to the submission of an outline drainage strategy to SEPA by the applicants, SEPA have confirmed (15.4.08) that the proposed surface water strategy is now acceptable in terms of water quality issues. Conditions are required in respect of a Construction Method Statement and a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme, with water quantity/flooding issues to be assessed at that stage.
West of Scotland Archaeology Service (23.01.08) – no archaeological issues in view of the forested nature of the site. Historic Scotland to be consulted regarding the setting of nearby monuments.
Historic Scotland (04.02.08) – the site lies in the landscape context of Achanabreck and Cairnbaan prehistoric rock carvings (cup and ring marks), both of which are scheduled ancient monuments. Rock art is found in prominent locations so the protection of setting is of importance. Forestry intervenes between these sites and the development site, although this is not normally regarded as acceptable long-term mitigation given that it is subject to felling regimes. The development site is unlikely to impinge in views out of the monument at Achnabreck. Although access to the car park passes the site, retention of an element of forestry along the track frontage will help screen the development. The Cairnbaan site is more elevated and available views across the wider landscape will be compromised by the presence of the development. Whilst finishing the structures in matt green will assist in their assimilation, a reduction in the height of the building would be preferable. ( Note: this is not possible for plant/process reasons). In terms of the impact of the development upon the surrounding historic environment, Historic Scotland’s concerns are expressed to be “strong, but not sufficient enough for us to maintain an objection”.
Scottish Water (04.03.08) – no objection.
Environmental Health (28.01.08) – initial holding objection pending the submission of a noise assessment and a chimney height assessment. Subsequent to the submission of the required details, further response (24.4.08) confirming no objection subject to conditions relating to noise and emission levels and site lighting. In view of the rural location and the isolated residential properties very stringent conditions are recommended as these are the only means by which the residential amenity of these properties can be safeguarded and ‘bad neighbour’ issues avoided.
North Knapdale Community Council (04.02.08) – no objection. The applicants have presented their proposals to the community council and the overwhelming view of those present was that it would bring renewable generating capacity to an area abundant in forest resources with significant environmental benefits.
(iv) PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
The proposal has been advertised for the purposes of neighbour notification and as a potential ‘bad neighbour’ (Article 9 and Section 34) The period for representations expired on 08.02.07. Three letters of objection have been received from the following:
Dr A M Bennett, 11 Cairnbaan Cotttages, Cairnbaan; Mr and Mrs E McGinty, Achnabreck, Lochgiphead; Mr J McArthur, Tyanna, Tayvallich.
The various grounds of objection are summarised below, along with comments received from the applicants in respect of the issues raised:
Insufficient hydrological information is contained in the application in respect of water supply and disposal. The nearest watercourse would not provide sufficient flow to sustain the plant in dry weather, and flood prone nature of the receiving catchment (Badden Burn) is such that a flood risk assessment should be required.
Page 43
Applicant’s comments – The development is to be served by mains water and not a private supply. It is not proposed to dispose of water from the site into the watercourse leading to the Badden Burn and therefore the proposal has no consequences for any flood risk associated with this watercourse.
The proposal would increase timber transport on public roads and/or lead to adverse impacts associated with the provision or upgrading of forestry roads. No consideration is given to the reduced efficiency of timber vehicles using forestry roads as opposed to public roads.
Applicant’s comments – the project has been scaled so as to match the available public/private wood supply within 50km. Forest product already uses forestry roads and public roads to reach market. A local market can equally be served by these same roads whilst reducing the need to transport timber to distant markets, with a consequent reduction in emission and roads maintenance costs.
The building and chimney will be visible above tree line and from neighbouring high points where it will impact on the main road, the Crinan Canal and adjoining monuments.
Applicant’s comments – The site has been chosen as it is designated for industrial development, is not prominent in the landscape and not subject to any landscape designation. The plant has been sited at the lowest possible point so that the high ground to the rear, which is forested and which rises to an elevation of 95 metres 500m to the north-east, will form a backdrop. The flue will not break the horizon and will be enclosed by surrounding topography.
Flume dispersal modelling should be undertaken to assess the consequences of stack emissions on surrounding communities.
Applicant’s comments – Emissions will be at a very low level due to the efficiency of the combustion process and the incorporation of an electrostatic precipitator. There is no prospect of communities being affected by emissions, which are at such a low level at the flue outlet. The EU Air Quality Directive sets a limit for particulates in the atmosphere of 50mg/m 3. The proposed plant emissions are set at 30mg/m 3at the flue and dispersion will reduce this further. An Air Quality Assessment supported by appropriate modelling has been submitted to confirm that this will be the case.
One of the features which makes this area attractive to visitors and residents is peace and quiet. The noise consequences of the proposal for recreational users and the nearest dwelling (200m) should be assessed.
Applicant’s comments – A Noise Assessment has been prepared at the request of the Council’s environmental health officers, and recommended mitigation measures are acceptable to the developer. It has been agreed during the processing of the application that no primary chipping of round wood will take place on the site.
This combined heat and power plant has no proposals for utilisation of the heat produced. Rather than supporting the government’s renewable heat strategy, it dissipates heat to the atmosphere.
Applicant’s comments – Heat will be use for the drying of wood chips to fuel the plant and to provide a supply of wood to energise the local wood heat market.
The proposal will result in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Applicant’s comments – CO 2 released during burning is re-sequestered by the replanted crop so the operation of the process is carbon neutral. The high load factor of the project (92 -95%) means that it provides base load supply (unlike intermittent wind energy) thereby displacing non-renewable generation creating carbon savings.
Page 44
The application indicates an overhead grid connection will be required. Given the sensitivity of the area an underground connection would be preferable.
Applicant’s comments – Separate consent from Scottish & Southern Energy will be required for a grid connection. Only a short section of wooden pole mounted line would be required at this location.
It is disappointing that the community have not been more involved in the targeting of the local environment for commercial gain on the back of ‘green’ energy.
Applicant’s comments – The project has been the subject of discussion with and presentation to the North Knapdale Community Council.
Two of the objectors express the view that the project ought to have been the subject of an environmental impact assessment.
Officer’s comments – The project was initially the subject of a screening/scoping process which comprised a meeting involving the applicant and relevant consultees, a formal screening request, subsequent formal consultation with those consultees, and finally the issuing of a screening opinion by the Council. That process concluded that other than historic environment/visual issues the proposal did not raise complex, novel or significant environmental effects sufficient to warrant the production of an Environmental Statement.
Page 45
APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 07/00983/DET
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Settlement Strategy
The site forms part of 4.29 hectares of land at Achnabreck which is specifically allocated in the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006 for industrial/storage development (Allocation BI-AL 12/2). It lies in a countryside location adjoining land within a ‘rural opportunity area’ which is outwith, but close to, the Knapdale National Scenic Area; the boundary of which contains land to the west of Cairnbaan and to the north of Achnashelloch.
It is subject to adopted structure plan policies STRAT SI 1 and STRAT RE 2 which support the principles of sustainable development, including renewable forms of electricity generation. There is a general presumption in favour of the development established by these policies, provided that local environmental considerations are not compromised.
Adopted local plan policies STRAT 3 and IND 2 support development related to the exploitation of local resources, such as forestry, and recognise that a locational need may warrant development in the countryside. Given the relationship between the site and the nearby NSA, it is necessary to evaluate the local consequences of the development in terms of the criteria set out in Policy RUR 2.
Emergent local plan policy LP BUS 2 sets out scales of development normally acceptable in the countryside development zones. This supports ‘small scale’ business development in the countryside and ‘medium scale’ development where an operational need is demonstrated for a rural location. In the case of this application the proposal constitutes a ‘medium scale’ development. This may be supported in principle firstly, by virtue of its operational characteristics which render it unsuited to a location within a settlement. More importantly, this land has been specifically allocated in the emergent plan as a rurally located industrial development site, suited to the needs of forestry or transport related uses, which could not normally be accommodated within settlement boundaries.
Policy REN 4 supports biomass projects in locations outside settlements and areas designated for nature conservation, subject to there not being unacceptable local environmental, servicing, access or electricity distribution consequences, and subject to ‘bad neighbour’ considerations being satisfied in terms of policy LP BAD 1.
B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
The proposal is for the construction of a wood fired combined heat and power plant on 2.8 hectares of land forming part of a Forestry Commission plantation established in 1983. It lies to the north of a principal forestry access road from the A816 at Cairnbaan, which serves the 20,000 hectare Kilmichael Forest. The site lies 300 metres east of the Oban road and there is an existing timber haulage depot 180m away on the opposite side of the forestry road (McGinty’s), at the rear of which stands an isolated residential property some 300 metres away from the site. The next nearest residential building is a single property is in an elevated location some 600m away on the opposite side of the A816 Oban road.
The development comprises a boiler and turbine house measuring 32m by 21m in area and 21m high. This will be finished externally in a combination of recessive coloured cladding and glazing and will be served by associated cooling plant (10m x 5m in area and 16m high) and a 24m high stack. The plant will utilise moving grate technology to dry then combust timber, linked to a condensing steam turbine. The process utilises a confined combustion chamber and low risk technology already proven in use in Europe and Scandinavia. Electricity will be exported via an overhead cable connection to the existing 33KV line 300m to the SW, which would be the subject of a separate Electricity Act application. Only 20% of the application site is to be occupied by structures and their associated hardstandings so that the remainder of the Page 46
site will be porous/semi-porous surfaces. Sustainable Urban Drainage Measures are proposed with the intention of limiting surface water run-off to close to pre-development values.
The biomass boiler is rated at 5.4MWe and will process approximately 7.5 wet tonnes of wood chips per hour. The plant will consume 60,000 tonnes of timber per year sourced from a 50 km radius principally using the forest road network. It is anticipated that this will save 25,000 lorry miles per year transporting timber from Mid Argyll to the Central Belt. The plant will consume both chipped round wood and brash; the latter currently being discarded at the felling site in view of its lack of commercial value. It was originally envisaged that chipping of round wood would take place on site. In view of concerns arising from potential noise nuisance in respect of the nearest dwelling, and to respect the tranquillity of the surrounding historical sites, it is now proposed that chipping will take place using a mobile plant at the felling sites, with only no primary chipping taking place on site (see recommended condition 12). The plant will have a silo capacity sufficient to power the plant for three days with feed via an augur driven system. In view of this, it will not be necessary to use machinery on site to load wood chips during evenings or weekends. It should be noted that the plant will consume virgin wood only in the form of 35mm chips, and not waste wood. It is not therefore necessary for the plant to be licensed by SEPA.
C. Natural Environment
The site is not subject to any nature conservation designation and is therefore acceptable in principle for biomass energy production in terms of structure plan policy STRAT RE 2 and emergent local plan policy REN 4. Given that the development site is afforested overall, and access is already available direct from an existing forest road, the proposal does not have any adverse consequences for nature conservation interests. Scottish Natural Heritage support the proposal as a sustainable form of electricity generation without impinging on nature conservation interests.
D. Historic Environment
Although the development is to be cut into the margin of an established forestry plantation, which in the future is to be managed without clearfelling, it will be visible from elevated viewpoints, some of which are significant cultural and tourism assets. It will therefore have consequences for the historic environment and needs to be considered in the context of the setting of monuments and visibility between sites of importance in the wider landscape. There are Scheduled Ancient Monuments at Achnabreck and above Cairnbaan (both cup and ring marked rocks). Visitors to the Achnabreck stones (and recreational users of the forest) would pass immediately by the proposed plant, which will however stand behind a 15m strip of retained forestry along the roadside affording a measure of, but not total, screening.
The plant would also be visible from the Achnabreck car park but not from the stones themselves, which lie some 800m SE of the site, shielded by topography and trees. The Cairnbaan stones occupy an elevated point some 660m west of the site, from which the plant would also be visible against a backdrop of forestry. The applicants point out that a maturing shelterbelt in the foreground will ultimately restrict this view, which is also affected by an intervening wirescape. Historic Scotland does not consider that the impacts on the scheduled site at Achnabreck will be unacceptable, but express concerns about visibility in the wider landscape when viewed from the Cairnbaan SAM, although these fall short of a formal objection.
Views from the stones at Cairnbaan are directed generally toward the site, but also take in a wider panorama, including significant man made features such as the canal, roads and the settlements of Cairnbaan and Lochgilphead. The landscape is significantly affected by the widespread presence of commercial forestry. Whilst the plant will be a visible feature, this will be against a backdrop of rising forested land. The Forestry Commission have confirmed their intention to continue the management of this land without clearfelling, so this context will persist in the longer term. It is not considered that the presence of the plant at more than half a Page 47
kilometre away in a location surrounded by forestry will impinge to an unacceptable degree upon the wider landscape setting of the monument in question.
E. Landscape Character
The site lies on the edge of the Upland Forest Moor Mosaic landscape character type at the foot of rising ground dominated by the presence of large-scale forestry plantations. The more sensitive Flat Moss (Moine Mhor) and the historic Kilmartin Glen are both shielded from the site by the effect of intervening topography, as are views from the A816 approaching Cairnbaan from the Oban direction.
The cutting of the site into a forested slope and the presence of rising land up to a 95m summit to the rear conspire to limit the overall impact of the development on the wider landscape. However, the presence of a tall building and its associated chimney will be noticeable in this wooded context from the A816 on the approach to Cairnbaan from Lochgilphead, although only over a short stretch and at right angles to the road (A 3D ‘fly- through’ has been prepared to demonstrate the extent of this visibility). The development would also be visible from the scheduled site above Cairnbaan, and at a distance from other elevated vantage points, such as above Dunardry. Steam rising above the building also has the potential to attract attention in certain weather conditions. Management of the surrounding land by the Forestry Commission as continuous cover with no clearfelling will assist in the assimilation of the plant in its surroundings as will colouring of the plant and equipment to help it merge with its forested backdrop. Scottish Natural Heritage does not consider that the development has significantly adverse landscape consequences.
F. Road Network, Access and Parking
Timber would primarily be delivered to the plant using the principal forest road passing the site, without the need for haulage of timber on the public road. In the event of material being imported other than from the Kilmichael Forest, access would be directly from the A816 using the existing forest road junction. This forest road is already frequented by timber traffic, and goods vehicle operations are conducted from the timber haulage yard close to the site. No road improvements are required. Parking and manoeuvring space for vehicles will be provided on site. Deliveries of timber would be restricted to between the hours of 0700 and 1800 Monday – Friday only and are expected to amount to 9 vehicles per day. This additional traffic is not of significance either in terms of the existing volume of traffic using the A816 or that using the forest road network.
G. Infrastructure
Water is to be supplied via a mains connection, although it is also intended to investigate the possibility of recycling rainwater as part of the process. The welfare facilities will be served by a chemical toilet only. Surface water drainage has been the subject of an outline drainage strategy which indicates that due to the extent of porous surfaces, favourable ground conditions and the intention to employ SuDS drainage methods, water run-off ought to be able to be limited to close to pre-development values. Electricity will be exported by way of an overhead pole mounted line to a nearby 33kv route, subject to a separate Electricity Act consent.
H Other Key Policy Matters
Pollution issues
Air quality – Particle emissions from the stack are to be less than 50mg/m 3 with the use of an electrostatic precipitator to remove dust particles from flue gases. NO x levels will be less than 400mg/m 3 and CO less than 370mg/m 3. Emission monitoring equipment is to be installed to Page 48
ensure that design levels are adhered to. Ash production will be via a water based system and quantities will be low (around 500kg/day) due to the efficiency of the combustion process. Subject to SEPA licensing, this will be sold as fertiliser.
The application has been accompanied by an Assessment of Atmospheric Emissions, involving dispersion modelling to predict pollutant concentrations which have been assessed against meteorological and topographical conditions and national air quality standards. This has determined that a stack height of 24 metres will suffice at this location (6 metres less than the manufacturer’s standard height anticipated at the time of application submission). The modelling indicates that nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and particulate matter (PM 10 ) concentrations at ground level receptor locations are all below national air quality objectives, and that no adverse air quality effects will arise as a result of this process, either in respect of residential properties, or in terms of the Moine Mhor Special Area of Conservation. The Head of Public Protection is satisfied that this will be the case, subject to appropriate pollution abatement equipment being in operation, and conditions to that effect are recommended.
Noise – The plant will operate 24hrs/day with deliveries and on-site external operations being restricted to the normal working day. A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of the application which indicates that, without mitigation, the development will produce a noise level of 46.8dbA at the site boundary and 30.3 dB(A) at the outside facade of the nearest residential property ‘Leaside’ (compared with the accepted noise level in a quiet bedroom of 35dBA). However, this has to be viewed in the context of a plant which will operate 24 hours a day in a location where night time noise levels have been recorded as being exceptionally low -- 21dB(A) (L 90 ). The report concludes that, in the absence of mitigation measures, there will be some noise consequences at ‘Leaside’ at night and on Sundays (when the intervening haulage yard is not operating) and some marginal differences at ‘Dunamuck Cottage’ during the day and at night.
Accordingly, the report proposes a number of mitigation measures including the following:
- Acoustic insulation to be installed along the western and southern sides of the building to control low frequency noise; - Noise monitoring to determine operational noise levels and characteristics; - Space retained within the site for possible future acoustic barrier in response to adverse noise monitoring or complaint; - Operational measures, including equipment maintenance regimes, restriction upon hours of external operations, limitation of on-site chipping operations etc.
The Head of Protective Services has reviewed the noise assessment and does not raise objection to the proposal subject to conditions addressing the recommended mitigation measures, which the applicants have confirmed they will be willing to implement.
Bad neighbour considerations – In view of the location of the nearest dwelling 300 metres away to the rear of the intervening transport yard, it is necessary to consider specifically the consequences of the development for residential amenity. The application introduces additional industrial development into a rural area with isolated residential properties. The area is allocated for industrial development in the draft local plan, the site adjoins a principal forestry haul route and a haulage yard operates adjacent to the site. Nonetheless, this development introduces industrial activity which will operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week. At present, the locality is subject to noise (particularly from goods vehicles), primarily in the early morning and the evening but also during the working day. However, as the noise monitoring has indicated, noise levels are otherwise low during the night and at weekends. The Head of Public Protection has accordingly recommended stringent conditions for the control and monitoring of noise in order to ensure that the noise climate is not degraded at the expense of residential amenity. Likewise, dust control measures required by condition will ensure that emissions will not have adverse consequences for residential amenity. Subject to mitigation measures being incorporated in construction, management measures being required in operation, and monitoring measures being required to demonstrate compliance with the parameters set by conditions, the development will not amount to a ‘bad neighbour’ in terms of adopted local plan policy POL PU 2 and draft local plan policy LP BAD 1. Page 49
Energy policy considerations
The power plant is proposed to have an installed capacity of 5.4MW, with a net output of 5.0MW, once the energy consumed by the process has been taken into account. It is expected to have over 90% productivity, compared with wind turbines, which only generate electricity for around 30% of the time. The plant is anticipated to produce a CO 2 saving of 15,000 tonnes per year. This site forms part of a larger national strategy which aims to establish up to 10 sites within Scotland; including one to serve Kintyre, another to serve North Argyll, and one to serve Arran. A planning application is currently under consideration for a further site within Cowal.
Government energy policy has set a renewable target of 31% by 2010 an 50% by 2020. In view of disproportionate reliance to date on wind power, the government is currently reviewing the Renewable Supply Obligation (RSO) with consideration being given to the expansion of biomass generation. The development would entail environmental benefits in terms of carbon savings, reduced road haulage of timber, and use of currently discarded forestry by-product i.e. dead wood, small diameter material and brash.
Economic considerations
Currently, transportation is a major cost for the forestry industry, absorbing up to 60% of the timber price. Forecast increased production in future years and growth in the recycling of wood and paper will have consequences for the economics of low value wood sourced from locations remote from the point of processing or consumption. Local use of timber minimising transport will cut costs and improve returns.
The total investment proposed in this project amounts to £12 million. Biomass is unique among renewable energy sources as it will help sustain local employment. This project is estimated to be capable of supporting 30 direct/indirect jobs.
Page 50
This page is intentionally left blank Page 51 Page 52
This page is intentionally left blank Page 53
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ward Number - 1 South Kintyre PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 27 th February 2008 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY Committee Date - 07 th May 2008 ______
Reference Number: 08/00158/DET Applicants Name: Mr. Paul Quinn Application Type: Householder Application Description: Erection of a shed (retrospective) Location: 11A Hillside Road, Campbeltown ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
Erection of a domestic shed within the garden ground of a flat
(ii) Other specified operations.
None ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be refused for the reasons set out on the following page.
______
(C) SUMMARY OF DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Development Plan Context:
Development Plan policies LP ENV 1 and LP ENV 19 together with Appendix A of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006 require that domestic outbuildings have regard to the context in which they will be situated and do not detract from its amenity or the amenity of the surrounding area and properties. In this respect, the proposal is considered contrary to the provisions of the emerging local plan.
(ii) Representations:
None
(iii) Does the Council have an interest in the site:
No
(iv) Need and Reason for Notification to Scottish Ministers.
None
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 09 th April 2008 Page 54
Author: Stuart Green (01546) 604075 Date: 09.04.08 Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr (01546) 604080 Date: 10.04.08
NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in Appendix A, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
Page 55
REASON FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 08/00158/DET
1. The shed is located within garden ground between the main street facing elevation of residential property and the public highway. Despite differences in ground level and a boundary hedge, the shed is visible from the street and from adjoining properties. The location and size of the shed is such that it adversely affects the ‘openness’ of the grounds to front of the residential properties fronting onto Calton Avenue and impinges on the visual amenity of the area. The development is therefore contrary to policies LP ENV 1 and LP ENV 19 together with Appendix A of the ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006, which collectively seek to ensure that new developments respect the amenity of the surrounding area.
Page 56
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/00158/DET
MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ADVICE
(i) POLICY OVERVIEW AND MATERIAL ADVICE
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006
Policy LP ENV 1 – In all development control zones the Council will assess applications for planning permission for their impact on both the natural, human and built environment. This policy sets out the considerations for assessing developments.
Policy LP ENV 19 – New development will be expected to be to a high standard of appropriate design in accordance with the design principles set out in Appendix A of this Local Plan.
Note (i): The applicable elements of the above Policies have not been objected too or have no unresolved material planning issues and are therefore material planning considerations.
Note (ii): The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(ii) SITE HISTORY
08/00007/ENFHSH – Unauthorised shed to front of flat – pending consideration.
(iii) CONSULTATIONS
None
(iv) PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
None, although it should be noted that this unauthorised development was brought to the Council’s attention as a result of a complaint from a member of the public.
Page 57
APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/00158/DET
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
This retrospective application stems from a complaint concerning the siting of a shed of approximately 9m² directly in front of a ground floor flat. With a maximum height of 2.1m, the proposal is a simple ‘box’ like timber frame design finished in horizontal timber cladding and bituminous felt finish on a mono-pitch roof. The flat is part of a larger residential block situated on the corner of Hillside Road and Calton Avenue on the north eastern perimeter of the estate. The shed is located directly in front of the window of a habitable room of the applicant’s flat, and stands at a right angle to the main building on land that is significantly lower than the adjacent footpath and road. Despite differing land levels and being partially screened by a mature hedge on higher ground that abuts the footpath, the shed is highly visible from outwith the site from the north and can also be seen from the south.
The siting of outbuildings to front of residential properties requires special consideration to ensure that the amenity of the surrounding area is protected and streetscapes are not undermined by inappropriate development. It is not therefore usual for sheds to be located in front gardens. The proposal is subject to the provisions of policies LP ENV 1 and LP ENV 19 of the emerging local plan which collectively seek to ensure that new development do not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding area. The presence of a shed of this proportion is significant enough to have an impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties and to be of significance in the street scene. Although the shed is partly screened by an adjoining hedge there is no guarantee that this will be retained in perpetuity.
The location of this shed is inappropriate in respect of the area in general and the adjoining flats in particular, and its approval would set an undesirable precedent for the proliferation of outbuildings in unsuitable locations, to the detriment of the appearance of and the residential amenity of the area as a whole.
Page 58
This page is intentionally left blank Page 59 Page 60
This page is intentionally left blank Page 61
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ward Number - 1 – South Kintyre PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT Date of Validity - 10th March 2008 MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS Committee Date - 7th May 2008 ______
Reference Number: 08/00498/COU Applicants Name: Janet Lumb and Angela Whiles Application Type: Change of Use Application Description: Change of use of and for the siting of 2 caravans Location: Land North East of Kilchrist Castle Cottages, Campbeltown ______
(A) THE APPLICATION
(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission
• Use of land for the siting of two short-term holiday letting caravans; • Extension of existing car park; • Installation of 3800 ltr. septic tank.
(ii) Other specified operations.
• Connection to the public water main. ______
(B) RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be refused as development contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan for the reasons attached.
______
(C) SUMMARY OF DETERMINING ISSUES AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
(i) Development Plan Context:
The application site is located within a ‘rural opportunity area’ identified in the emerging ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ wherein the provisions of STRAT DC 4 and LP TOUR 1 would support the principle of ‘small scale’ tourism development subject to consistency with other policies in the Development Plan. The development, by virtue of its siting would not have an adverse impact upon the setting of the nearby listed castle nor on the wider landscape. The proposal would therefore satisfy policies STRAT DC 9 and ENV 13a in terms of the historic environment, and STRAT DC 8 and TOUR 1 in respect of landscape character.
However, the site is accessed by a public road and private way neither of which are adequate to serve additional development without improvements in terms of geometry, surfacing and provision of passing places. In such circumstances, Policy TRAN 4 requires commensurate improvements with the scale of development. In this case, the land required for access improvements is not in the applicants’ control as is the private road serving the site. As the applicant is not in a position to secure a legal agreement with third parties to bring about access improvements consistent with the requirements of Policy TRAN 5, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of development plan policy on access and road safety grounds.
(ii) Representations:
Five letters of objection representing the views of nine individuals have been received.
Page 62
(iii) Consideration of the Need for Non -St atutory or PAN 41 Hearing:
Not required
(iv) Reasoned Justification for a Departure to the Provisions of the Development Plan.
Not applicable
(v) Is the Proposal a Schedule 1 or 2 EIA development:
No
(vi) Does the Council have an interest in the site:
No
(vii) Need and Reason for Notification to Scottish Ministers.
None
(viii) Has a sustainability Checklist Been Submitted:
Not appropriate for this scale of development.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 10 th April 2008
Author: Peter Bain (01546 604082) Date: 9th April 2008 Reviewing Officer: Richard Kerr (01546 604080) Date: 10 th April 2008
NOTE: Committee Members, the applicant, agent and any other interested party should note that the consultation responses and letters of representation referred to in Appendix A, have been summarised and that the full consultation response or letter of representations are available on request. It should also be noted that the associated drawings, application forms, consultations, other correspondence and all letters of representations are available for viewing on the Council web site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
Page 63
REASONS FOR REFUSAL RELATIVE TO APPLICATION: 08/00498/COU
1. The site is accessed by a public road and private way neither of which are adequate to serve additional development without improvements in terms of junction geometry with the public road, and surfacing improvements and provision of passing places along the length of the private access linking the development site with the adopted highway. In such circumstances, Policy TRAN 4 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006 requires commensurate improvements with the scale of development, which in the case of this development, are not achievable on land within the applicants’ control. Furthermore, as the applicants have indicated that they are not in a position to secure a legal agreement with third parties to bring about necessary access improvements in accordance with the requirements of Policy TRAN 5, the proposal fails to meet the requirements of development plan policy on access grounds to the detriment of road safety.
2. The proposal consequently fails to accord with the requirements of Policies STRAT DC 4 and TOUR 1 of the 'Argyll and Bute Local Plan' (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006 as it would lead to small scale tourism development in the countryside in circumstances where a satisfactory means of access does not exist, and where improvements commensurate with the scale of development could not be achieved, which would result in the intensified use of a sub-standard access regime to the detriment of road safety.
Page 64
APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/00498/COU
MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ADVICE
(i) POLICY OVERVIEW AND MATERIAL ADVICE
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002
STRAT DC 4 – Supports the principle of up to ‘small scale’ developments on suitable sites within ‘rural opportunity areas’, subject to compliance with other relevant policies in the Development Plan.
STRAT DC 8 – Seeks to resist development which will have a significant adverse impact upon the wider landscape setting.
STRAT DC 9 – Seeks to resist development which would have a significant adverse impact upon the historic environment.
‘Kintyre Local Plan’ 1984 and (1 st review) 1989
STRAT 4A – Sets out the criteria against which proposals for development in the Kintyre countryside will be assessed.
POL TOUR 2 – Encourages the development of tourism and recreational facilities provided that they do not conflict with in-bye agricultural land, scenic landscape designations or, natural and heritage conservation.
POL PU 2 - Sets out the Council’s policy requirements with regard to private sewage treatment plants and wastewater systems.
POL BE 1A - Seek to resist development which would have a significant adverse impact upon a listed building or its setting.
‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ (Modified Finalised Draft) 2006
LP ENV 1 – Sets out the criteria against which all applications for planning permission will be assessed.
LP ENV 13a – Seek to resist development which would have a significant adverse impact upon a listed building or its setting.
LP TOUR 1 – Seeks to encourage new and improved tourism facilities and sets out the criteria against which such proposals will be assessed, including consistency with other relevant policies in the Development Plan.
LP HOU 6 – Seeks to resist the use of caravans as permanent homes.
LP SERV 1 – Sets out the Council’s policy requirements with regard to private sewage treatment plants and wastewater systems.
LP TRAN 4 – Sets out the Council’s policy requirements with regard to development utilising new and existing, public roads and private access regimes.
LP TRAN 5 – Requires developments to contribute proportionately to off-site road improvements where the proposals will significantly increase vehicular or pedestrian traffic on substandard public or private approach roads.
LP TRAN 6 – Sets out the Council’s policy requirements with regard to parking provision.
Page 65
Note (i): The applicable elements of the above Policies have not been objected too or have no unresolved material planning issues and are therefore material planning considerations.
Note (ii): The Full Policies are available to view on the Council’s Web Site at www.argyll-bute.gov.uk
(ii) SITE HISTORY
The applicant has previously submitted an application (ref. 07/01433/COU) seeking planning permission for the siting of ten caravans. That application was withdrawn on 10 th March 2008. There is no other recent planning history available for this site.
(iii) CONSULTATIONS
• Area Environmental Health Manager (13.03.08) – No objections; notes that the development will require a ‘Caravan Site Licence’ under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
• Area Roads Manager (18.03.08) – Recommends refusal on the grounds that the public and private approach roads to the site are sub-standard with regard to junction geometry and provision of passing places and, therefore, the intensified use would be to the detriment of road safety. Whilst it is technically possible to upgrade the sub-standard elements of the approach roads, the land required to implement such improvements is outwith the control of the applicant and cannot be secured by planning condition. The applicants have previously advised that they would not be prepared to enter into a Section 75 Agreement to secure provision of the off-site highways improvements.
• Scottish Water (20.03.08) – No objections; confirm that there is sufficient capacity in the public water network to serve the development at the present time.
• West of Scotland Archaeology Service (20.03.08) – No objections.
• Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd. (27.03.08) – No objections.
• NATS (07.08.08) – No objections.
(iv) PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
The current application has been advertised in the local press for the purposes of ‘bad neighbour’ development (re: multiple septic tank), and the notification of ‘vacant’ land.
Letters of objection have been received from: John MacDonald, Knocknaha Farm, Campbeltown (received 25.03.08); Heather Ronald, 4 Knocknaha Cottages, Campbeltown (27.03.08); Bruce Keyte, Parkview, Knocknaha, Campbeltown (01.04.08) and; Roland and Ann Luckman, Kilchrist Castle, Campbeltown (03.04.08). A further letter of objection has been received from Margaret and Drew McKendrick and John and Jean Wallace of Uigle Farm Campbeltown.
The points of representation are summarised as follows:
• That the proposal will result in additional traffic utilising a substandard public and private access arrangement, including a deficient junction with the main road, and will consequently be detrimental to road safety.
Page 66
Comment: The Area Roads Manager has advised that planning permission be refused on the grounds of road safety; this issue is addressed in further detail in the assessment below.
• The owners of Kilchrist Castle have advised that the applicant’s right of access to the application site is limited to that of the existing 5 holiday cottages. The applicant does not have the right to service additional development utilising the existing private access road nor will they obtain such consent from the relevant landowners.
Comment: This relates to a matter of civil law and is therefore not a material planning consideration and should be disregarded for the purposes of determining the current application.
• That as the applicants are not local people, and have no intention of residing in the locality, that the development would not result in a significant economic benefit to the local community.
Comment: The origin and place of residence of the applicant are not material planning considerations and should be disregarded for the purposes of determining the current application.
• That the existing holiday cottages, adjacent to the application site, are category B listed buildings. The proposal seeks to site caravans within the immediate setting of these buildings and as such will have a significant adverse impact upon their setting.
Comment: The adjacent holiday cottages are not listed buildings. However, Kilchrist Castle which lies to the west of the application site is a category B listed building. Consideration of the impact that the proposed development would have upon the setting of this property is given in the assessment below.
• The caravans would be out of place in a predominantly farming area and use of an unfenced access would raise bio-security issues in the current farming climate.
The applicant has submitted a supporting statement to accompany the application which is summarised as follows:
• That the scale of the proposal has been drastically reduced to take into account the concerns raised by local residents and landscape impact concerns raised by the Planning Department to the original submission (ref. 07/01433/COU);
• That the site is located within a ‘rural opportunity area’ which would indicate some capacity for small scale development;
• That the development on this site would not be visible from any other dwelling or public highway in the locality;
• That there is no scope to improve the junction of the B842 and the minor road serving the site, as the land to do so is contained within the garden ground of two houses. However, it is noted that visibility from the junction is good in both directions and it is contended that this more than compensates for the lack of width at the junction – indeed Members are encouraged to look at the site before accepting the Area Roads Managers advice in this matter.
Page 67
APPENDIX B – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/00498/COU
PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT
A. Settlement Strategy
The application site is located within a larger ‘rural opportunity area’ identified in the emerging ‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ wherein the provisions of STRAT DC 4 and LP TOUR 1 would support the principle of ‘small scale’ tourism development subject to consistency with other policies in the Development Plan. The proposed siting of two caravans would be consistent with the supported scale of development and in this respect at least may be viewed as consistent with the provisions of policies STRAT DC 4 and LP TOUR 1(b).
B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development
The provisions of LP TOUR 1 support the general principle of ‘small scale’ tourism development at this location provided that the development respects the amenity of the surrounding area.
The application site is located beside five existing holiday cottages on rising land some 600m to the east of the cluster of houses at Knocknaha on the B842 public highway. The site lies approximately 100m west of Kilchrist Castle with the intervening land containing an established deciduous woodland. The site is bounded to the north by a water course with further rising pasture land beyond and also immediately east of the site.
The proposal seeks consent to site two short-term holiday letting caravans within the lower lying northern portion of the site as an extension to the existing holiday cottage operation. The formation of an additional access within the site and the installation of a septic tank and soakaway will be necessary to facilitate the development. The applicant has indicated a preference to use a chalet type caravan with the external walls finished in a horizontal timber boarding finished in either white or dark brown.
The provisions of LP HOU 6 would seek to resist the use of caravans as permanent residences; the application as originally submitted sought permission for the use of one unit as a managers residence. Insufficient justification was provided for such a residential use and the proposal and the application has subsequently been amended to remove this residential element.
The Area Environmental Health Manager has not raised any objection to the proposal but does note that, in the event planning permission were granted, that the development would require a separate ‘Caravan Site Licence’. The proposal does not give rise to concern with regard to the amenity of adjacent, existing land uses and the proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with this element of LP TOUR 1(c).
C. Built Environment
The application site lies some 100m to the west of Kilchrist Castle which is a category B listed building; the provisions of STRAT DC 9, POL BE 1A and LP ENV 13a would all seek to resist development which is considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the setting of such a building.
The castle is located within a mature deciduous woodland which confines its setting to the immediate grounds. From the application site only the upper portions of the rear of the castle is visible above the trees; the development would only be partially visible from a couple of the rear, upper windows of the castle and would not impact upon its intimate woodland setting. Page 68
The proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of STRAT DC 9, POL BE 1A and LP ENV 13a.
D. Landscape Character
The provisions of LP TOUR 1 support the general principle of ‘small scale’ tourism development at this location provided that the development respects the landscape character of the surrounding area and relates well to existing development; STRAT DC 8 would seek to resist development which, by virtue of its location, siting, scale, form design or cumulative impact would have a significant adverse impact upon a visually contained or wider landscape setting.
The application site is located on the lower slope of gently rising hill land to the west of the B842 public highway; the site is bounded to the north, east and south by rising pasture land with a transition to rougher grazing on the upper slopes; the land to the west is mature deciduous woodland which would largely screen the site from view to the west. The proposed caravans will be partially open to view from the B842 when travelling south; partial long distance views of the caravans will also be possible when travelling east towards Stewarton from Machrihanish. It is however noted that the caravans will be very small features within a large, panoramic landscape setting and, provided that recessive finishes to the external walls of the caravans are utilised, the development would not appear as either prominent or incongruous features within the wider landscape and is therefore considered to be consistent with STRAT DC 8 and LP TOUR 1(c) & (e).
E. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters.
The provisions of LP TRAN 4 would seek to resist development where a site is served by an existing private access regime which is considered to be of such a poor standard as to be unsuitable for additional vehicular traffic, unless the developer is able to implement improvements commensurate with the scale of development. LP TRAN 5 would require the developers to contribute proportionately to the upgrade of substandard private or public approach roads where the intensified use of the access, as a result of the development, would result in unacceptable road safety conditions which would result in an unreasonable burden on the Roads Authority to improve a significantly substandard road.
The site is accessed from the junction with B842 by a short section of minor public highway which runs almost to Knocknaha Farm, thereafter the access continues as an unsurfaced private way. The applicant proposes to create additional parking and turning facilities within the application site but is unable to advance any access improvements.
The Area Roads Manager has advised that the existing public highway and private access network serving the site are unsuitable to accommodate any additional development and that the intensification in use would be to the detriment of road safety. Specifically, it is advised that:
i) The geometry of the junction with the B842 public highway is substandard, being only of single lane width and therefore would not allow traffic to pass within the junction. It is the advice of the Area Roads Manager that the minor public highway cannot accommodate any additional development until such time as the junction is upgraded to a double width bellmouth for the first 15m to allow a vehicle to turn into the access road while another vehicle is waiting to exit. The land required for the junction improvements would include the garden ground of adjacent residential properties and is outwith the control of the applicant.
ii) That there is no passing provision between the junction of the public highway and the application site. This would need to be rectified with the formation of inter-visible passing places at 150m intervals from the public highway to the application site. The amount of passing places required would be commensurate with the scale of the Page 69
proposed development and resultant intensification in use of the road network; however in this instance the land required for the formation of any additional passing places lies outwith the control of the applicant.
iii) That the surface of the private road is substandard and would require to be re-graded and all potholes filled, again commensurate with the scale of the proposed development. The private road serving the site is outwith the control of the applicant.
In view of the above, the proposal will result in the increased use of substandard public and private approach roads to access the development. The applicant is not in a position to facilitate necessary junction improvements nor the commensurate provision of passing places and the upgrade of the surface to mitigate for the intensification of use, with a consequent adverse impact upon road safety. In view of the above, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of LP TRAN 4 and LP TRAN 5 and also, STRAT DC 4 and LP TOUR 1 which require the proposal to be consistent with all other relevant policies in the Development Plan.
The provisions of LP TOUR 1(d) also require sites for tourism development to be reasonably accessible by public transport, where available, cycling and on foot. In this respect it is noted that a public bus service travels along the B842 public highway some 600m from the development site; the site is located approximately 4Km from Campbeltown which would bring the site within reasonable cycling distance of a major settlement.
F. Infrastructure
Water supply shall be by connection to the public water main; Scottish Water has not raised any objection to the proposal. Foul drainage shall be to a new septic tank and soakaway within the application site; there is no public sewer within the vicinity of the application site; the proposal is considered to be consistent with POL PU 2 and LP SERV 1.
Page 70
This page is intentionally left blank Page 71 Page 72
This page is intentionally left blank Page 73 Argyll and Bute Council Agenda Item 7 Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
Application Types: ADV App.for Advertisement Consent, ART4 App. Required by ARTICLE 4 Dir, CLAWUApp. for Cert. of Law Use/Dev. (Existing), CLWP App. for Cert. of Law Use/Dev. (Proposed), COU App. for Change of Use Consent, CPD Council Permitted Dev Consultation, DET App. for Detailed Consent, FDP Forest Design Plan Consultation, FELLIC Felling Licence Consultation, GDCON Government Dept. Consultation, HAZCON App. for Hazardous Substances Consent, HYDRO Hydro Board Consultation, LIB Listed Building Consent, LIBECC App. for Consent for ecclesiastical building, MFF Marine Fish Farm Consultation, MIN App. for Mineral Consent, NID Not. of intent to develop app., NMA Not. for Non-Materail Amnt, OUT App. for Permission in Principal, PNAGRI Prior Not. Agriculture, PNDEM Prior Not. Demolition, PNELEC Prior Not. Electricity, PNFOR Prior Not. Forestry, PNGAS Prior Not. Gas Supplier, PREAPP Pre App. Enquiry, REM App. of Reserved Matters, TELNOT Telecoms Notification, TPO Tree Preservation Order, VARCON App. for Variation of Condition(s), WGS Woodland Grant Scheme Consultation
PER Approved Decision Types: WDN Withdrawn NOO No Objections AAR Application Required CGR Certificate Granted OBR Objections Raised PDD Permitted Development PRE Permission Required NRR New App. Required Page 74 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00676/NMA Mrs J. Thomson 09/04/2008 10/04/2008 PER Land East Of 1/2 The Moy Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6PF
Erection of dwelling house and installation of septic tank - non-material amendment - amendment to finishes.
08/00646/NMA Mark T. Piper 07/04/2008 11/04/2008 PER
Land South Of Loch Conailbhe Gearach Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute
Erection of hunting lodge with associated accomodation, septic tank, oil tank and wind turbine with hub height of 9m- non-material amendment - increase in length of proposal.
08/00633/NMA Mr And Mrs Murdo MacLeod 03/04/2008 11/04/2008 PER Plot 1 Land At Kilnaughton The Oa Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA42 7AX
Erection of 4 dwellinghouses - non-material amendment to house size on Plot 1
08/00618/NMA Mr M Livingstone And Ms I Gilmour 31/03/2008 09/04/2008 PER Plot 1 South Of Tigh An Inis Kilmichael Glassary Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8QA
Erection of dwellinghouse - non-material amendment - finished floor levels reduced
08/00614/NMA Mr Furneaux 31/03/2008 09/04/2008 PER Land South Of Shepherds Cottage Ford Argyll And Bute
Erection of two dwellings and siting of septic tank - non- material amendment to 05/01635/DET - amendment to include installation of deck on house site
08/00612/NMA John Kenny 01/04/2008 09/04/2008 PER Plot 5 West Of Achnacarnan Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6YF
Erection of dwellinghouse non-material amendment to 06/02335/DET - install two velux rooflights on the east elevation (larger than previously agreed under non-material amendment) and to install two rooflights on the north side elevation Page 75 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00609/PNAGRI Ormsary Farmers 01/04/2008 09/04/2008 PDD Ormsary Farm Ormsary Argyll And Bute PA31 8PE
Erection of farm workshop shed
08/00555/NMA Pamela S. Richmond 18/03/2008 10/04/2008 PER Land North East Of Whitehouse Cottage Inverneill Lochgilphead Argyll PA30 8ES
Construction of tourist hostel with manager's living accomodation, car park and private sewage treatment plant - non-material amendment - various internal and external amendments including window and door amendments, timber linings to be deleted, increase in height of external walls, balcony and external stair amendments.
08/00553/NMA Mr M. Lvingstone And Ms I. Gilmour 18/03/2008 07/04/2008 PER
Plot 1 South Of Tigh An Inis Kilmichael Glassary Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house - non-material amendment to house position
08/00534/DET Mr M Livingstone And Ms I Gilmour 18/03/2008 17/04/2008 PER Plot 1 South Of Tigh An Inis Kilmichael Glassary Argyll And Bute
Repositioning of site access and amendment to plot boundary in relation to planning consent reference 07/02301/DET dated 7th February 2008
08/00515/ADV Lorraine McMurchy 14/03/2008 08/04/2008 PER The Pulse Healthfood Shop 3 Mafeking Place Longrow Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6JD
Erection of non-illuminated sign
08/00513/DET Joseph Graham Norman 12/03/2008 31/03/2008 PER Traiguaine Tri Arduaine Argyll And Bute PA34 4XQ
Erection of extension - renewal of previous consent reference 03/00902/DET Page 76 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00512/NMA Port Charlotte Homes Ltd 14/03/2008 31/03/2008 REF Land South West Of Coastguard Station School Street Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute
Erection of 2 (semi-detached) dwellinghouses - non-material amendment to reference 07/02177/DET - amendment to remove skews on the roof.
08/00509/DET Mr And Mrs D Oman 10/03/2008 08/04/2008 PER 18 Kilkerran Park Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6UG
Erection of extension
08/00508/NMA John W. McNulty 10/03/2008 02/04/2008 PER
Ardtornish Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8PL
Erection of garage/workshop (grpund floor) and self contained flat ancillary to existing dwelling house (first floor) - non- material amendment to reduce application to garage/workshop only
08/00507/DET Diagio Plc 13/03/2008 11/04/2008 PER Land S E Of Caol Ila Distillers Caol Ila Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA46 7RJ
Installation of replacement septic tank to serve RockView, Inverview and Excise House
08/00505/DET Neil Campbell 12/03/2008 07/04/2008 PER Tigh Na Choille Achnamara Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8PT
Erection of garage
08/00477/DET Mr David Dunbar 13/03/2008 10/04/2008 PER
Garden Ground Of Leanamhor Kilkerran Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6RB
Erection of dwellinghouse Page 77 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00476/DET Mr And Mrs Ewan Grant 10/03/2008 08/04/2008 PER Pennyland Mill Southend Argyll And Bute PA28 6RG
Extensions and partial replacement roof covering to dwelling house
08/00473/DET Mr M. Marshall 10/03/2008 08/04/2008 PER Croft Cottage Creag An Tairbh Ford Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RH
Erection of conservatory (amended position)
08/00467/NMA Marie Hendry 06/03/2008 17/03/2008 REF
91 Chalmers Street Ardrishaig Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA30 8DX
Erection of decking to rear of public house - non material amendment - amend to include deletion of clear acrylic at windows
08/00466/DET Mr Trevor Martin 29/02/2008 18/04/2008 PER Erines Lodge By Tarbert Argyll PA29 6YL PA29 6YL
Erection of extension
08/00464/NMA Mr M Livingstone And Ms I Gilmour 04/03/2008 12/03/2008 PER
Plot 1 South Of Tigh An Inis Bridgend By Lochgilphead
Erection of dwellinghouse - non material amendment to include installation of solar panels
08/00462/DET Bob Rutherford 05/03/2008 07/04/2008 PER Land South East Of 60 Main Street Port Wemyss Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwellinghouse Page 78 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00441/DET Ann-Marie Elliot 04/03/2008 01/04/2008 PER Drumlemble Primary School Drumlemble Argyll And Bute PA28 6PN
Installation of solar panels (retrospective)
08/00434/DET NHS Highland 17/03/2008 14/04/2008 PER
Campbeltown Hospital Ralston Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6LE
Installation of lighting columns within car park
08/00427/DET Mr And Mrs W Livingstone 27/02/2008 28/03/2008 PER
1 Lochview Avenue Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6FN
Demolition of conservatory and erection of sun room
08/00418/DET Alex And Gill Chasemore 27/02/2008 10/04/2008 WDN
Plot B Lower Conisby Bruichladdich Isle Of Islay Argyll
Erection of dwelling house and installation of septic tank
08/00380/DET Stanley Howard Associates 07/03/2008 08/04/2008 PER
Field 6 North West Of Pennyseorach Farm Southend Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwellinghouse, formation of new access and installation of sewage treatment plant
08/00379/DET The Lord Robertson Of Port Ellen 04/03/2008 02/04/2008 PER 2 Cruach Bowmore Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute
Erection of extension Page 79 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00343/DET Carradale Golf Club 03/03/2008 11/04/2008 PER Carradale Golf Club Airds Carradale Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6SF
Demolition of existing and erection of new clubhouse
08/00340/CPD Community Regeneration 20/02/2008 12/03/2008 PDD
Dalintober School Dalaruan Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6HG
Erection of fenced enclosure for pre-fives play area and new door and ramp
08/00317/LIB Boots Properties 18/02/2008 31/03/2008 PER 11 Longrow South Campbeltown Argyll And Bute
Installation of air conditioning condenser units and internal alterations
08/00277/DET Dr Dorothy Bell 20/02/2008 31/03/2008 PER Conisby Bruichladdich Islay
Erection of dwellinghouse and garage and formation of new access
08/00260/DET Mr Duncan Cunningham 15/02/2008 14/03/2008 PER A H Aon Barmore Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6TT
Alterations and extension to dwelling house
08/00256/DET Finlay Geekie 20/02/2008 31/03/2008 PER Tigh Nan Uruisg Upper Kilchattan Isle Of Colonsay Argyll PA61 7YR
Alterations and extension to dwelling house
Page 80 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00253/REM Mr S. Campbell 27/03/2008 18/04/2008 PER Land 140 Metres South Of Achnashelloch Farm Kilmichael Glassary Argyll And Bute
Erection of dwelling house and installation of septic tank
08/00251/LIB The 13th Duke Of Argyll 05/02/2008 31/03/2008 WDN Inveraray Castle Inveraray Argyll And Bute PA32 8XF
Erection of boilerhouse
08/00249/DET The 13th Duke Of Argyll 05/02/2008 31/03/2008 PER Inveraray Castle Inveraray Argyll And Bute PA32 8XF
Erection of boilerhouse
08/00244/DET Mr B Cook And Ms L Garnham 05/02/2008 19/03/2008 PER Plot 5 Craigowan Crescent Craigowan Road Campbeltown Argyll
Erection of dwellinghouse
08/00241/OUT J. Robin Dixon 30/01/2008 14/03/2008 PER
Land South Of Achamore Tarbert Argyll PA29 6YF
Site for erection of dwelling house - with formation of access in revised location to that permitted by 07/01612/OUT
08/00239/DET Dr D. Barker 30/01/2008 14/03/2008 PER
Barfad Farm Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6YH
Formation of vehicular access to classified road Page 81 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00238/OUT J Robin Dixon 01/02/2008 01/04/2008 PER Plot 2 Land South Of Achamore Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6YF
Site for erection of dwellinghouse - with formation of vehicular access in revised location to that permitted by 06/02634/OUT
08/00233/COU Gail Cook 29/01/2008 01/04/2008 PER
Mobile Snack Bar Kilmory Industrial Estate Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute
Siting of mobile snack bar - renewal of consent ref. no. 03/00716/COU
08/00228/NMA Mr And Mrs Logan 24/01/2008 28/03/2008 PER Benview Tayinloan Argyll And Bute PA29 6XG
Extension to dwelling house and installation of underground oil storage tank - non-material amendment - amendments to include formation of ramp, timber decking and various window amendments.
08/00224/DET Mr James McKinven 29/01/2008 12/03/2008 PER Bruce Cottage Carradale Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6SE
Erection of extension to dwelling
08/00216/DET Maritime And Coastguard Agency 28/02/2008 07/04/2008 PER
H M Coastguards School Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6UL
Extension to coastguard station
08/00215/CLAWU Barry Pettit 11/02/2008 31/03/2008 PER
Land South East Of 1 Keils Craighouse Isle Of Jura
Change of use of land to siting of caravan - certificate of lawfulness (existing use) Page 82 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00214/DET Barry Pettit 19/02/2008 01/04/2008 PER Sabhal Mor Keils Croft Craighouse Isle Of Jura Argyll And Bute PA60 7XG
Extension to dwellinghouse
08/00209/COU The Isle Of Gigha Heritage Trust 12/02/2008 08/04/2008 PER
Steading At North Drumachro Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AD
Alterations and change of use of vacant steading to form 3 dwellings for holiday use
08/00187/DET Mr And Mrs Brown 21/01/2008 12/03/2008 PER Knapdale Cottage Crinan Argyll And Bute PA31 8SW
Extension to dwellinghouse
08/00180/OUT Roland Worthington-Eyre 25/01/2008 11/04/2008 PER No 2 C The Oa Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA42 7AZ
Site for the erection of dwellinghouse
08/00178/DET Andrew Stanton 30/01/2008 13/03/2008 PER
Galley Of Lorne Inn Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8QN
Partial replacement roof from flat roof to pitched roof, including formation of upper floor and installation of dormers
08/00172/DET Dunmore And Carsaig Estates 21/01/2008 13/03/2008 PER
Land West Of Tighean-Ura Dunmore Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6XZ
Formation of new access Page 83 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
08/00154/LIB Mr And Mrs M Wilson 14/01/2008 27/03/2008 PER Larkfield Garval Road Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6TR
Replacement windows and minor internal alterations
08/00149/LIB Mr J Houston 14/01/2008 28/02/2008 PER East Lodge Kilmartin Argyll And Bute PA31 8QF
Erection of conservatory
07/02299/DET Mr And Mrs McGinty 18/12/2007 08/04/2008 PER
E Mcginty Ltd Achanbreac Cairnbaan Argyll And Bute
Erection of steel portal frame industrial unit
07/02281/OUT Lynne Clark 26/11/2007 13/03/2008 PER
Ruin North Of Mudheireadh Tarbert Argyll
Site for erection of two dwelling houses and upgrading of existing vehicular access
07/02242/DET Mr Baker 28/12/2007 13/03/2008 PER Kilmory Cottage Paterson Street Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8JP
Alterations to derelict coach house to form 2 semi-detached dwellinghouses
07/02155/COU Mr Michael Rennie 14/12/2007 18/03/2008 PER Highfield Drumlemble Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6PW
Change of use and alteration of disused agricultural building to form a dwellinghouse Page 84 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
07/02057/DET Fiona Gilbert 30/10/2007 19/03/2008 PER Muirhead Croft Bridgend Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA44 7PL
Erection of dwellinghouse and installation of septic tank
07/01962/ADV Calmac Ferries Ltd 11/10/2007 09/04/2008 PER
Ferry Slipway Gigha Ferry Terminal Ardminish Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA
Erection of electronic message sign
07/01619/DET Mr S McLarty 24/08/2007 07/04/2008 PER
Land South Of Barnlunich Farm Barbreck Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8UW
Erection of dwellinghouse and installation of sewage treatment plant and water storage tank
07/01531/REM Classic Experiences (Pitlochry Ltd) 13/11/2007 07/04/2008 PER Housing At Torran Farm Ford Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8RH
Erection of 7 dwelling houses, formation of access and installation of foul drainage treatment plant
07/01433/COU Janet Lumb And Angela Whiles 31/08/2007 19/03/2008 WDN Land East Of Kilchrist Castle Campbeltown Argyll
Change of use of land for siting of 10 caravans
07/00973/LIB Mr B Critchley 15/05/2007 28/03/2008 WDN
Taynish Estate Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8PW
Proposed demolition of barn Page 85 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
App No Applicant name, address and proposal Valid date Decision date Decision
07/00548/FDP Roger Wilson 23/03/2007 28/03/2008 PER Brenchoille Woodland Furnace Argyll And Bute
Forest Design Plan
07/00309/COU Ms Christine Doogan 14/02/2007 27/03/2008 PER
Bothy Old Dairy East Trodigal Farm Machrihanish Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6PT
Change of use and alterations of outbuildings to form dwelling house - amended proposal
07/00300/OUT Christine Doogan 21/02/2007 27/03/2008 PER Land North Of East Trodigal Farm Machrihanish Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6PT
Site for erection of dwellinghouse
07/00242/DET Ms Ryoko Ikeda 21/03/2007 27/03/2008 PER
Barnfield Carradale Argyll And Bute PA28 6QJ
Rear extension, porch extension and erection of conservatory and erection of garage/workshop
06/01893/OUT Nigel Boase 15/09/2006 28/03/2008 WDN
Ardlarach House Ardfern Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8QR
Site for erection of dwellling house
06/00685/WGS Forestry Commission Scotland 31/03/2006 28/03/2008 PER
Kilmory Forest Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8RS
Revision of Forest Design Plan
Page 86
This page is intentionally left blank Page 87 Argyll and Bute Council Development Services BUILDING STANDARDS DELEGATED DECISIONS SINCE LAST COMMITTEE Mid-Argyll, Kintyre and Islay
CASENO APPLICANT NAME/PROPOSAL RECEIVED VETTED DECISION DECISION AND SITE ADDRESS DATE DATE 01/00021/ALT/A Mr Jonathan Marsh 18/03/2008 20/03/2008 20/03/2008 WARAPP
Ardnaw Achnamara Lochgilphead Argyll
Alterations to building to form dwelling - Amendment to Warrant reference 01/00021/ALT granted 7 July 2003 - change from dwelling to bothy and use upper floor as storage only. 02/00894/ALT/A Hans & Judy Unkles 29/04/2005 23/03/2006 17/03/2008 WARAPP
Sandisland Tayvallich Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8PN
Alteration and extension - amendment to warrant 02/00894/ALT granted 23rd August 2002 - internal layout changes and formation of new hearth and multi-fuel stove 05/00746/ERD/A Derek Goodridge Neill 14/03/2008 25/03/2008 14/04/2008 WARAPP
Plot At Ballochroy Tayinloan Tarbert Argyll
Erection of a 6 apartment 1+1/2 storey timber framed dwelling house with extension to existing septic tank - amendment to Building Warrant reference 05/00746/ERD granted 25 July 2005 - provide protective barrier and handrail to deck and stiars, change en-suite layout i.E sanitary ware and door opening 05/00754/ERD/A Mr And Mrs J Kirkby 26/11/2007 27/11/2007 18/03/2008 WARAPP
Plot 1 Torran Farm Ford Lochgilphead Argyll
Erection of a 1+3/4 storey dwelling house with attached garage and installation of septic tank and soakaway - amendment to warrant reference 05/00754/ERD granted 3rd August 2005 - amendment required - Altered drain runs and positon of treatment plant, soakaway arrangement, stud wall layout to 1st floor, shower room layout, dining room doors open out, heat detector to kitchen and smoke detector to 1st floor lounge. 05/00894/ERECDW/A Mr Robin Parry 10/03/2008 12/03/2008 18/03/2008 WARAPP
Plot 3 Ardmore Crinan Lochgilphead Argyll
Erection of 2 storey 8 apt timber framed dwelling house - amendment to Building Warant reference 05/00894/ERECDW granted 1 February 2006 - revisions to internal layout. 05/01119/MULTIP Mr William Beattie 01/07/2005 14/07/2005 20/03/2008 WARAPP
Filling Station Kilmartin Lochgilphead Argyll PA31 8RQ Demolition of existing garage/workshop and erection of new garage/workshop with associated parking and drainage
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 21 April 2008 Page 1 of 4 Page 88 05/01756/EXTEND/A Mrs J Wilmot 28/02/2008 12/03/2008 17/03/2008 WARAPP
Shore Cottage Shore Road Carradale Campbeltown Argyll PA28 6SH Demolition of lean to shed and erection of an en-suite bedroom and utility room - amendment to Building Warrant reference 05/01756/EXTEND/A granted 30 January 2006 - omit en-suite and associated pipework. 06/00962/INSTAL G. McNaughton And Sons 06/07/2006 14/07/2006 19/03/2008 WARAPP
Land North Of Laggan Kilmartin Argyll
Installation of sewage treatment plant with infiltration system to accomodate 3 no. Plots
06/00972/ERECDW/A Mr And Mrs McCulloch 05/03/2008 07/03/2008 28/03/2008 WARAPP
Plot 5 The Avenue Inveraray Argyll And Bute
Erection of a 1+1/2 storey 7 apartment timber framed dwelling house - amendment to warrant reference 06/00972/ERECDW granted 7th July 2007 - internal layout and drainage, electrical and ventilation changes 06/01041/ERECDW/A Mr And Mrs Graham Terry 27/02/2008 10/03/2008 16/04/2008 WARAPP
Bluebell Cottage Whitehouse Argyll And Bute
Erection of a 6 apartment single storey timber dwelling with associated septic tank and soakaway and oil storage tank - amendment to Building Warrrant application 06/01041/ERECDW granted 11 October 2006 - internal layout alterations and position of septic tank and soakaway. 06/01411/MULTIP/B Mr R. Blair 14/03/2008 25/03/2008 26/03/2008 WARAPP
Barnhill Ardfern Argyll PA31 8QN
Internal alterations to extend lounge, create utility, w/c and en-suite shower room to ground floor. Installation of gas fire, new stairs and new upper floor shower room - amendment to Building Warrant reference number 06/01411/MULTIP/A granted 2 February 2007 - amendment to lounge window openers, removal of upper floor store and altered shower tray size. 06/01482/ERECDW/C M And K MacLeod Ltd 07/04/2008 09/04/2008 17/04/2008 WARAPP
Plot 17, 18, 19 And 20 Barrmor View Kilmartin Argyll And Bute Erection of 4, 1+1/2 storey four apartment, timber framed dwelling houses - amendment to Building Warrant 06/01482/ERECDW granted 20 December 2006 Plot 18 - disabled access repositioned to front and alteration to drainage 07/00199/ERECDW/A Mr Stuart MacDonald 14/03/2008 19/03/2008 19/03/2008 WARAPP
Garden Ground At Tigh Na Drochit Tayinloan Argyll And Bute Erection of a 4 bedroom, 6 apartment 1+1/2 storey timber framed dwelling house - Amendment to Warrant reference 07/00199/ERECDW granted 30 March 2007 - internal layout changed to reflect as built 07/00558/ERECDW Tayvallich Estate 24/04/2007 16/05/2007 18/03/2008 WARAPP
Plot 350 Metres North Of Tayvullin Tayvallich Argyll And Bute Erection of a 2 storey, 7 apartment, timber frame dwelling with associated septic tank and soakways
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 21 April 2008 Page 2 of 4 Page 89 07/00665/ALTEXT/A Director Of Community Services 17/03/2008 18/03/2008 18/03/2008 WARAPP
Gigha Primary School Ardminish Isle Of Gigha Argyll And Bute PA41 7AA Single storey extension with alterations and DDA improvements - amendment to warrant reference 07/00665/ALTEXT grranted 10 July 2007 - changes to drainage layout and internal layout of extension 07/01163/ERECDW/1 Mr David Livingstone 30/01/2008 20/02/2008 19/03/2008 WARAPP
Land South East Of Tayandock House Bridgend Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute Erection of a 1+1/2 storey timber frame dwelling house - Stage 2 all works to completion
07/01353/ERECDW H Thompson And E Rodger 06/11/2007 14/11/2007 17/04/2008 WARAPP
The Wheelhouse Dunmore By Tarbert Argyll And Bute PA29 6YA Erection of 6 apartment, 3 bedroom single storey timber frameddwelling with drainage treatment plant
07/01554/ALTER Isle Of Jura Development Trust 19/12/2007 10/01/2008 18/03/2008 WARAPP
The Antlers Craighouse Isle Of Jura Argyll And Bute PA60 7XS Alterations to existing coffee shop, replace dormers with roof lights, internal layout changes and decking area.
08/00019/ERECDW Port Charlotte Homes Limited 28/12/2007 17/01/2008 08/04/2008 WARAPP
Land South West Of Coastguard Station School Street Port Charlotte Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute Erection of 2 semi detached, 1 and a half storey 6 apartment timber frame dwellings
08/00101/CONV01 Mrs E Campbell 22/01/2008 05/02/2008 26/03/2008 WARAPP
5 Main Street West Inveraray Argyll And Bute PA32 8TU Alterations to part of existing restaurant to form a 2 apartment flat
08/00106/ALTEXT Boots The Chemist 22/01/2008 11/02/2008 20/03/2008 WARAPP
Alliance Pharmacy 11 - 13 Longrow South Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6AH Internal shopfitting works including extending into adjacent unit
08/00170/ALTER Mrs E Campbell 12/02/2008 25/02/2008 17/04/2008 WARAPP
19 Mansefield Road Port Ellen Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA42 7BH Alteration to roof covering by removing existing asbestos cement sheeting and replacing with roof tiles
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 21 April 2008 Page 3 of 4 Page 90 08/00227/ALTEXT Mr And Mrs David Latta 22/02/2008 11/03/2008 19/03/2008 WARAPP
Windsor Main Street Bowmore Isle Of Islay Argyll And Bute PA43 7JH Single storey extension
08/00230/ALTER Mr Michael McManus 25/02/2008 11/03/2008 04/04/2008 WARAPP
Brannan Kilkerran Road Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6RD External alterations to wall by removing existing timber cladding and replacing with insulation and blockwork.
08/00244/ALTER British Red Cross 03/03/2008 13/03/2008 04/04/2008 WARAPP
22 Hall Street Campbeltown Argyll And Bute PA28 6BU Proposed internal alterations
08/00294/ALTER David And Kim McAllister 14/03/2008 27/03/2008 08/04/2008 WARAPP
Aravorean 24 Kilduskland Drive Ardrishaig Argyll And Bute PA30 8HS Alterations to roof space to remove chimney to ground level
08/00306/CONV03 Mr A. McSporran 19/03/2008 31/03/2008 31/03/2008 WARAPP
Burnside Tayinloan Argyll And Bute PA29 6XQ
Extension and alterations of two dwellings to form a single dwelling house
08/00366/INSTAL William Gray 08/04/2008 09/04/2008 09/04/2008 WARAPP
Bruachan Lochgair Lochgilphead Argyll And Bute PA31 8SD Relocate oil tank
WARAPP=Building Warrant Approved WARREF=Building Warrant Refused WARWIT=Building Warrant Withdrawn COMF=Letter of Comfort issued COMFR=Letter of Comfort refused EXEMPT=Exempt Building Warrant LOCWIT= Letter of Comfort withdrawn SUPERS=Superceded by new Building 21 April 2008 Page 4 of 4 Page 91 Agenda Item 8a
Local Members - Cllrs. MacMillan, Hay & Philand Committee Date - 7 th May 2008
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 PROPOSED LISTING OF BUILDINGS AS BEING OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST CASTLETON HOUSE, LOCHGILPHEAD
1. INTRODUCTION
The Planning (Listed Buildings And Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 confers powers on the Scottish Ministers, acting through Historic Scotland, to list buildings and structures considered to be of special architectural or historic interest, taking into account the value of individual buildings, their contribution to the value of groups of buildings, and the desirability of preserving fixtures or curtilage structures.
Where such buildings or structures are identified for prospective listing, Historic Scotland are required to consult those persons with an interest in the buildings. In this case the Council is being consulted as Planning Authority in respect of this prospective listing.
2. THE MERITS OF THE STRUCTURE
Historic Scotland have indicated their intention to list, Castleton House, Lochgilphead, as a Category C(S) listed structure.
This is a mid 19 th century dwelling, altered in 1875 and extended in 2001. It is a good example of the Victorian picturesque and has associations with the renowned architectural practice of Peddie and Kinnear and possibly the arts and crafts architect Sir Robert Lorimer. The dwelling retains a number of original internal details including doorpieces and fireplaces. The listing would encompass curtilage structures including a detached store (recently converted to a residential annex), a boathouse, and ornamental gate piers.
3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF DESIGNATION
Should the building become listed, listed building consent would be necessary in respect of any works of demolition, or significant alteration or extension of, the listed structures.
4. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that no objection be raised to the listing of the dwelling and that Historic Scotland be notified accordingly.
5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy, Financial, Personnel and Equal Opportunities – none.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 15 th April 2008 Author and contact point: Richard Kerr 01546 604080 Page 92
This page is intentionally left blank Page 93 Page 94
This page is intentionally left blank Page 95 Agenda Item 8b
Local Members - Cllrs. MacMillan, Hay & Philand Committee Date - 7 th May 2008
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 PROPOSED LISTING OF BUILDING AS BEING OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST FORMER PASSENGER TERMINAL BUILDING, PIER SQUARE, ARDRISHAIG
1. INTRODUCTION
The Planning (Listed Buildings And Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 confers powers on the Scottish Ministers, acting through Historic Scotland, to list buildings and structures considered to be of special architectural or historic interest, taking into account the value of individual buildings, their contribution to the value of groups of buildings, and the desirability of preserving fixtures or curtilage structures.
Where such buildings or structures are identified for prospective listing, Historic Scotland are required to consult those persons with an interest in the buildings. In this case the Council is being consulted as Planning Authority in respect of this prospective listing.
2. THE MERITS OF THE STRUCTURE
Historic Scotland have indicated their intention to list the former passenger terminal building at Pier Square, Ardrishaig, as a Category C(S) listed structure.
This is a late 19 th century building associated with the operation of Ardrishaig Harbour and the Crinan Canal. It was constructed to collect pier dues from passengers boarding steamers at the pier and remains substantially unaltered. It is a single storey stone built hipped roofed building which includes a waiting room, turnstile pends and a small clock tower. It ceased to be used as a passenger building in the 1960’s, and latterly British Waterways have leased the accommodation for use by local businesses. Its relationship with the associated Canal Office and buildings opposite is of importance in defining Pier Square. The building is of importance to Ardrishaig’s maritime past, the Crinan Canal and the history of west coast passenger steamers.
3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF DESIGNATION
Should the building become listed, listed building consent would be necessary in respect of any works of demolition, or significant alteration or extension of, the listed structure.
4. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that no objection be raised to the listing of the dwelling and that Historic Scotland be notified accordingly.
5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy, Financial, Personnel and Equal Opportunities – none.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 9th April 2008 Author and contact point: Richard Kerr Page 96
This page is intentionally left blank Page 97 Page 98
This page is intentionally left blank Page 99 Agenda Item 8c
Local Members - Cllrs. Semple, Colville and Kelly Committee Date - 7 th May 2008
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) (SCOTLAND) ACT 1997 PROPOSED RE -LISTING OF BUILDING AS BEING OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST THE PICTURE HOUSE, HALL STREET, CAMPBELTOWN
1. INTRODUCTION
The Planning (Listed Buildings And Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 confers powers on the Scottish Ministers, acting through Historic Scotland, to list buildings and structures considered to be of special architectural or historic interest, taking into account the value of individual buildings, their contribution to the value of groups of buildings, and the desirability of preserving fixtures or curtilage structures.
Where such buildings or structures are identified for prospective listing, Historic Scotland are required to consult those persons with an interest in the buildings. In this case, the Council is being consulted as Planning Authority in respect of this prospective re-listing of the building from its existing Category B status, to a Category A listing.
2. THE MERITS OF THE STRUCTURE
The Picture House is a rare survival of an early 19th century cinema dating from 1913 with some surviving 1935 interior details. It is one of the earliest surviving purpose built cinemas in the UK and the only example in Scotland of a first wave cinema still in use as such. Stylistically the building is Glasgow School Art Nouveau. Both the exterior and the interior are uncommon in cinema design. The inclusion of scenery in the auditorium and the lack of division of the interior, allowing films to be seen from the stalls and balcony, are now both highly unusual features. It is clear that this little altered remnant of the early picture houses is of national importance and justifies status as a Category A listed building
3. THE CONSEQUENCES OF DESIGNATION
Should the building become listed, listed building consent would be necessary in respect of any works of demolition, or significant alteration or extension of, the listed structures. Status as a category A building may improve the prospects of the building attaining grant assistance for future refurbishment or improvement.
4. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that no objection be raised to the listing of the dwelling and that Historic Scotland be notified accordingly.
5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy, Financial, Personnel and Equal Opportunities – none.
Angus J Gilmour Head of Planning 09 th April 2008 Author and contact point: Richard Kerr 01546 604080
Page 100
This page is intentionally left blank Page 101 Page 102
This page is intentionally left blank Page 103 Agenda Item 10
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL KINTYRE & ISLAY AREA COMMITTEE
OPERATIONAL SERVICES MAY 2008
CAPITAL RECONSTRUCTION
1. Summary
This report asks Members to approve reconstruction for 2008/09.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That reconstruction works in Appendix A are approved.
3. Background
3.1 The allocation of capital funds to road reconstruction in Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay is £750,000. This is 31% of the total for Argyll & Bute. In addition there is £140,000 unspent from the previous two years. This gives a total for 2008/09 of £890,000.
3.2 Members should not that this report only deals with capital funded reconstruction. Other road maintenance work will be carried out with revenue funding.
For further information or clarification of any matter contained within this report please contact Neil Brown on 01631 562125
Page 104
This page is intentionally left blank Mid Argyll Kintyre and Islay Appendix A Capital Reconstruction 2008-09
Mid Argyll Kintyre Islay Route / Town Location Budget Route / Town Location Budget Route / Town Location Budget
A816 Bridgend to Drimvore £70,000 A83 South of Tayinloan £80,000 A846 Keills to Port Askaig £40,000
A819 North Three Bridges £40,000 A83 South of Musdale £30,000 A846 Low Road £40,000
A819 North of Inveraray £30,000 B842 (S) Stewarton to Southend £20,000 A846 North Bay, Port Ellen £20,000
B8024 Achahoish to Loch Arail £20,000 B842 (N) Carradale Road £30,000 A846 Burnside, Craighouse - Jura £40,000
B8025 Bellanoch to Barnluasgan £20,000 B843 Drumlemble £20,000 A846 Feolin to Craighouse - Jura £40,000 Page 105
Tarbert Garvel Road £10,000 UC59 Rhoin - RAF Machrihanish £15,000 B8016 High Road £60,000
Ardrishaig Westbank Road £10,000 UC38 Moss Road £15,000 Various Colonsay £15,000
Lochgilphead Bishopton Road £10,000 Various Campbeltown Streets £30,000 Various Town Streets £25,000
Inverary Barnbrae £10,000
UC18 Crinan Ferry Road £20,000
Various Surface Dressing £40,000 Various Surface Dressing £40,000 Various Surface Dressing £50,000
Totals £280,000 £280,000 £330,000 Page 106 Page 107 Agenda Item 11
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE OPERATIONAL SERVICES 7 MAY 2008
REDEVELOPMENT AT PORT ASKAIG
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to update Members on the current position with the Works at Port Askaig.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee note the contents of the report.
3. CONTRACTUAL ISSUES
3.1 Progress on the Phase 1 Mustering area is complete apart from minor landscaping and woodland management works. Planting for the woodland management is currently underway.
3.2 Progress on the Phase 2 Marine Works at Port Askaig has been very poor. Substantial completion is expected by the end of April but there will still be snagging works required after this date.
3.3 Carillion have submitted extensive claims up to October 2007 and more are expected for the remaining period of the contract. Substantial claims have been submitted but Arch Henderson who are supervising the works have been unable to evaluate these claims due to lack of details from Carillion.
3.4 MacLeod Construction has been awarded the contract for the Phase 3 pier Buildings. They were due to start on 10 th March but have been delayed by Carillion’s failure to clear the necessary site area. The official start date is now 21 st April although preliminary works and the moving of Calmac to a temporary office will occur before that date. The effect of the delayed start on completion of the works has still to be assessed.
3.5 The total cost of the works is now estimated at £12,900,000. Some additional marine grant has been secured. The Council are seeking further funding through the unallocated marine grant monies to close the funding gap.
1 Page 108
4. JURA FERRY ISSUES
4.1 The marine works involved the reconstruction of the Jura ferry berth and the fixed ramp for the Jura ferry. Arch Henderson, the designers felt that a design with the steep gradients of the existing ramp would not comply with current safety standards. In addition, at the time of the design it was thought that the existing ferry may have to be replaced due to the high levels of traffic and it would be desirable to replace the ferry with a standard roll on/off ferry operating from 1 in 8 slipways. The design therefore allowed for the simple conversion of the existing ramp to a 1 in 8 slipway. The new linkspan is capable of taking the Jura ferry at all states of the tide, and this is a substantial improvement to the previous operations of the old linkspan.
4.2 Trials of the new berth and landing ramp were carried out on 11 April. From these trials there is a concern that the theoretical figures for usage of the ramp have not allowed for the tapering of the end of the ferry ramp. Therefore when the ferry ramp is at a 1 in 8 gradient or steeper it is not usable.
4.3 The consultant has been asked to re-examine his figures and to take into account possible wave action.
4.4 The Jura Community Council has described the disruption to the ferry service as intolerable. In reality, when the mainland ferry is berthed and when the ramp is not usable due to low water, it is only for a period of 30 minutes that the ferry cannot operate and subsequent shuttle operation will clear any build up of traffic. The mainland ferry berths overnight at Port Askaig on Monday and Friday from 2000hrs. This prevents access to the link span and during periods of low water it will not be possible to provide a vehicle ferry service to Jura. This affects two sailings that operate with 12 hours notice and the late night on request sailing requiring 3 days notice. Data on sailings over the last 3 months is being collected to assess the level of service. A response will be made to the Community Council once all the information has been collected.
4.5 The consultant has proposed a modification to the ramp but it is not clear if this will offer any significant improvement. The consultant has been asked to quantify how much improvement the proposed modifications will make. This work will be undertaken if it can be demonstrated that it will improve the current situation.
4.6 It would require extensive modifications to the ramp to make it usable for all states of the tide and the cost cannot be justified when it would be a short term measure until the current ferry is replaced (10 years).
4.7 The ferry has suffered some damage when moored at the new berth during bad weather. It is proposed to install two Yokohama fenders to prevent such damage in future.
2 Page 109
5. IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Policy – None. 5.2 Financial – Additional capital funding is required 5.3 Personnel – None 5.4 Equalities Impact Assessment - None 5.5 Legal – None.
For further information, please contact Peter Ward (Tel: 01546 604651).
Stewart Turner Head of Roads & Amenity Services 16 April 2008
3 Page 110
This page is intentionally left blank Page 111 Agenda Item 12
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE OPERATIONAL SERVICES 7 MAY 2008
A83 AT BEALACH A CHAOCHAIN (SOUTH OF MUASDALE)
1. PURPOSE
This report is in Response to a request from Cllr Colville regarding his concerns at the stability of the road on the Bealach a Chaochain.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Committee note the contents of the report and request that a more formal inspection regime relating to the road edge movement is initiated.
3. DETAILS
3.1 Cllr Colville had received reports of cracking in the road and was concerned that a failure would cut off the South of Kintyre
3.2 The A83 at Bealach a Chaochain is cut into a steep hill side with no verges on the landward side and very narrow verges on the seaward side. There is a history of movement in the carriageway edge of the seaward side and a concrete beam was installed to limit this movement. A recent inspection has revealed cracking in the road surfacing along this edge.
3.3 The seaward slope below the road on the seaward side is steep and it is not possible to carry out a full visual inspection due to the presence of the BT pedestrian walkway. However the small amounts of movement in the carriageway indicate that there has not been a significant movement in the slope. However the cracking is a cause for concern.
3.4 On the landward side the cut slope rises steeply from the road edge with a dwarf retaining wall. This wall is frequently damaged by vehicle impacts
3.5 Preliminary design work was carried out in the early nineties for a full realignment of these bends. Ground investigation along the proposed route indicated silts and sands with varying levels of water table. This indicated that there would be slope stability problems for the proposed road and it is not unreasonable to assume these conditions extend to the existing road slopes above the road.
1 Page 112
3.6 A very preliminary estimate for the proposed realignment is in excess of £2,000,000 and it would need planning approval and land acquisition. With the current capital allocations this project is deemed unaffordable
3.7 In the event of an edge failure a cheaper solution would have to be either a repair if possible or widening of the road on the landward side by cutting into the existing slope. Both solutions would be complex due to the nature of the ground conditions
3.8 Further ground investigation and preliminary design work will be undertaken to develop a solution. Land could then be acquired so that in the event of a significant slippage the road could be realigned quickly.
3.9 It is recommended that a formal monitoring regime of the road edge movement is initiated.
4. IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Policy – None. 4.2 Financial – Additional capital funding is required 4.3 Personnel – None 4.4 Equalities Impact Assessment - None 4.5 Legal – None.
For further information, please contact Peter Ward (Tel: 01546 604651).
Stewart Turner Head of Roads & Amenity Services 16 April 2008
2 Page 113 Agenda Item 13
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE
7th May 2008
BT PAYPHONES
1. SUMMARY BT have written to the Council as part of a formal consultation process regarding BT’s current programme of proposed public payphone removals. Responses require to be lodged by the 2 nd July 2008.
2. RECOMMENDATION That members consider whether they wish to make a formal Area Committee response to the consultation, and in doing so, state their reasons for any objections.
3. BACKGROUND Please see Appendix 1 attached. Copies of the correspondence has also been circulated to Community Councils who have been requested to provide details of any objections to the Area Corporate Services Manager by Friday 30 th May for collation.
4. IMPLICATIONS
Policy None
Financial None
Personnel None
Equal Opportunities May reduce access to telephone services for those households without their own telephone, or mobile phones Legal None
Community Effect of removal may be to leave a number of communities without access to a pay phone.
Page 114
This page is intentionally left blank Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120
This page is intentionally left blank Page 121 Agenda Item 14a
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL AREA COMMITTEES STRATEGIC FINANCE MAY 2008
AREA CAPITAL RECEIPTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 It was agreed at the Executive on 20 March that a report would be submitted to the area committees advising them of an estimated level of capital receipts to allow forward planning on the use and allocation of this funding.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 Area committees note the terms of this report.
3. DETAIL
3.1 Previously area committees have been advised of their share of capital receipts in arrears. Whilst this provides certainty around the funding available it does not allow planning for the use of this funding. This report provides an estimate of the likely capital receipts that area committees can expect to receive during 2008-09. Area committees should use the estimate as a working assumption in developing a planned approach to use of capital receipts for 2008-09.
3.2 The capital plan assumes a total level of capital receipts of £500,000 for 2008-09. The share for area committees is £250,000. From a planning point of view it can be assumed each area committee will have £62,500 available to spend.
3.3 In addition to the above area committees also have the following share of unallocated capital receipts from 2007-08. Capital receipts, projects approved and unallocated receipts are outlined in Appendix 1.
Bute & Cowal £23,414 Helensburgh & Lomond £43,488 Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay £22,020 Oban, Lorn & The Isles £40,613
3.4 Combining unallocated receipts and the estimate for 2008-09 gives a total available for each area to spend as shown below. The unallocated receipts from 2007-08 can only be spent on capital expenditure as these preceded the creation of the Capital Fund. Unallocated 2008-09 Total £ £ £
Bute & Cowal 23,414 62,500 85,914 Helensburgh & Lomond 43,488 62,500 105,988 Mid Argyll, Kintyre & Islay 22,020 62,500 84,520 Oban, Lorn & The Isles 40,613 62,500 103,113
Page 122
3.5 It should be noted that the Bute & Cowal Area Committee have a forward commitment of £20,000 against future receipts for Ardencraig Nurseries. The Bute & Cowal allocation is split in the proportions of 60% to Cowal and 40% to Bute. The total available for 2008-09 including unallocated receipts is estimated at £85,914. Therefore the allocations would be £51,548 for Cowal and £34,366 for Bute. The £20,000 for Ardencraig Nurseries should be deducted from the Bute share of the proceeds leaving an available balance of £14,366.
3.6 A copy of the report approved by the Executive on 20 March is attached. This outlines the operation of the Capital Fund and the conditions that relate to the use of area capital receipts funding for capital and revenue funding. An extract from the report is noted below that summarises these conditions.
3.9 Area Committees must use funds in a way that contributes to the Corporate Plan and Statement of Intent. Funding can be used as a contribution to projects in either the revenue or capital budget.
3.10 Where funding is being used for a capital project then the criteria for capital expenditure are as follows: • The expenditure must result in the creation of an asset owned by the Council. • The expenditure must be in respect of an asset already owned by the council and must significantly. • Increase the value of the asset. • Extend the useful life of the asset. • Enhance the operating capability of the asset.
3.11 Where funding is being used for revenue expenditure then the expenditure, in addition to contributing to the Corporate Plan and Statement of Interest, must relate to: • Repair & maintenance of public sector infrastructure. • A one off contribution to an external body towards the capital cost of a community asset or a contribution to an event. • A one off contribution towards the cost of an event that has a significant impact on the corporate objectives of the Council.
Payments must not be made to support ongoing revenue costs and must not create an ongoing commitment on the Council’s revenue budget.
Bruce West Head of Strategic Finance 22 April 2008 Reports/areacapitalreceiptsbw25march
Page 123
AREA BUDGETS Total Allocation MAKI OLI B&C H&L Budget brought forward from 2006-2007 51,995.37 33,378.91 36,909.11 42,313.73 Capital Receipts 2007-2008 Land at St Catherine's 10,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 SW Office, Glenshellach Tce, Oban 25,000.00 5,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Bethina, Bullwood Rd, Dunoon 100,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 40,000.00 20,000.00 Bethina, Bullwood Rd, Dunoon 7,738.05 1,934.51 1,934.51 1,934.51 1,934.51 Workshop, Union St, Rothesay 32,300.00 3,230.00 3,230.00 6,460.00 3,230.00 Ground adjacent to Whitegates Road 28,500.00 5,700.00 2,850.00 2,850.00 2,850.00 Ground at 60b Edward St, Dunoon 11,000.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 2,200.00 1,100.00 Ground at rear of 41 Cruachan Cottages Taynuilt 600.00 60.00 120.00 60.00 60.00 Total Area Capital Allocation 215,138.05 91,019.88 74,613.42 99,413.62 78,488.24
Signage B842 10,000 Bowmore to Kilarrow House Footpath- CWSS 5,000 Upgrading Street Lighting Lochgilphead 6,000 Old Quay Head Env Imp C'Town Town Centre 7,000 Flooding at Saddell 7,000 Railings at Inveraray 10,000 Crinan Improvements 8,000 Improvements to Play/Pitch Areas 7,000 Aqualibrium Nursery Fence 9,000 Land Acquisition, Soroba 15,000 Oban Christmas Lights 5,000 Capitalisation of Safety Fencing 14,000 Pedestrian Crossings and Ramps 4,000 Rothesay Christmas Lighting 5,000 Street Signage - Cowal & Dunoon 3,000 Ardencraig Nurseries 20,000 B&C Equipment 13,000 Riverside Toilets 31,000 Hermitage Academy Synthetic Pitch 7,000 Hermitage Park Play Area 1,000 Bendarroch Park Play Area 17,000 Kirkmichael Play Area 10,000 Total Area Capital Expenditure 69,000.00 34,000.00 76,000.00 35,000.00
Budget Outstanding 22,019.88 40,613.42 23,413.62 43,488.24
Page 124
This page is intentionally left blank Page 125 Agenda Item 14b
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND THE ISLANDS AREA COMMITTEE
7 May 2008
CAPITAL RECEIPTS
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Further to the report by the Head of Strategic Finance members are invited to consider applications for the use of capital receipt funds and to note that a further report will be brought back to a future Area Committee with recommendations for an application procedure.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That members consider the current applications for Capital Receipt expenditure.
2.2 That members note that a further report will be made regarding recommendations for future application procedures.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 The Head of Strategic Finance has advised that the Area Committee have a total of £84,520 available during 2008/09 for distribution.
£22,020 of this relates to monies carried forward from 2007/08 and subsequently must be distributed following the previous criteria:
1) Must be fully compliant with legal definitions for capital expenditure
2) In accordance with The Councils Goals and Values, Strategic Objectives and Area Strategy / Development Plans or approved Service Plans.
3) Be used for the purposes of improving Council services or their delivery, or for improving local amenities or infrastructure which are the responsibility of the Council
4) As far as possible within the agreed spending timescale, should gear in additional external funding
5) Will not reduce current, or potential Council income, or commit the Council to revenue or Capital commitments beyond the current financial year.
£62,500 is anticipated from 2008/09 capital receipts and can be used to fund expenditure in accordance with the revised criteria agreed by the Page 126
Executive Committee on 20 March 2008 (see extract at Para 3.9 of Bruce West’s report on Area Capital Receipts elsewhere on the agenda)
3.2 2007/08 Monies The Mid Argyll, Kintyre and the Islands Area Committee agreed in principle on 3 rd October 2007 that, subject to detailed costings, £6000 be given to Lochgilphead Community Centre Improvements. Detailed costings are still awaited from the Community Centre Council so this sum has not been accounted for in the financial detail of the Head of Strategic Finance’s paper. We are advised that costings will be forthcoming.
Taking account of this agreement in principle, the Committee have available unallocated receipts from 2007/08 of £16,020.
Competent proposals for expenditure have been received from officers for the following:
Operational Services: Playing Fields Improvements: £8,300 for the purposes of: Ropework Park, drainage, goals and nets, fencing (£4,100) Furnace Park: Fencing, Nets (£1200) Ardrishaig Park: Drainage (£1500) Tarbert Park: Drainage (£1500)
If members wished to approve the expenditure then £7720 would remain from 07/08 monies to be distributed.
3.3 2008/09 Monies It is projected that £62,500 will be available for disbursement during the current financial year. Expenditure must meet the revised conditions agreed by the Executive on 20 March and be of a strategic nature, contributing to the Corporate Plan (which included approved Area Strategies. Copies of the Corporate Plan and Area Strategy are attached in Appendix 1 for reference.
Applications for financial assistance have been received from a number of external bodies the detail of which is contained below. As grants to external bodies are made from revenue expenditure the sum does not have to meet the capital de minimus level of £6000.
Project Sum Comment requested Mull Of £9000* Total project cost: £74,000. Some funding Kintyre secured from HIE, seeking other funders. Music Clear contribution to Area Strategy through Festival Events and Festivals priority. Given its size and economic benefit the event is of a strategic nature to the area.
Tarbert £7500 Total project cost £30,000. Balance secured Scottish through other grants / private support. Series Clear contribution to Area Strategy through Events and Festivals priority. Given its size and economic benefit the event is of a Page 127
strategic nature to the area.
Mid Argyll £2885 Total Project Cost £5770. Balance to be Youth secured from other funders. Cost to Project – purchase 10 sets of 3 seater chairs to be Cinema used to develop community movie nights. Club Partial contribution to Area Strategy through Youth Work Strategy priority. Given the scale and nature of this project it is not seen as a strategic project within the context of the Area Strategy / Corporate Plan.
Jura £5000 Total project cost £70,000. Balance to be Initiative at secured from other funders e.g. Leader, the Edge – HIE, SNH. Cost to provide car parking space Countryside in Craighouse to encourage visitors to park Access and walk and provide car parking for Pedestrian Ferry. Partial contribution to Area Strategy and Corporate Plan through links to Jura Passenger Ferry priority and Remote / Island Communities. This project is part of the Jura Community Plan being taken forward by the Initiative at the Edge Project and is seen as a strategic project.
Total £24,385
Total £21,500 without MAYP
*The Mull of Kintyre Music Festival committee originally requested £5000 support from the Capital Receipt Fund and £4000 from the Leisure Development Grants. As the full £9000 is eligible for funding from the Capital Receipt Fund members are invited to consider funding the total requested from this source, enabling the Leisure Development Grants to be increased for other events and festivals – an Area Strategy priority. (please see Leisure Development Grants paper elsewhere on the agenda)
3.4 To comply with ‘Following the Public Pound’ there will be conditions attached to any agreement to grant assist external bodies. These may include the submission of post Event reports and financial information, and for assets the production of a fully costed Business Plan. We will also need to ensure that our long term application procedures for area capital receipt funds are transparent and accessible, consistent across the Council area and dealt with efficiently and appropriately. Further discussions will be held with Strategic Finance, Community Learning and Regeneration and Corporate Services regarding the application process and recommendations will be brought in due course to a future Area Committee.
4. IMPLICATIONS
Page 128
Policy None
Financial If all the projects detailed in the report are supported then £45,835 would still be available for distribution in 2008/09. Personnel None
Equal Opportunities None
Legal None
Community Supporting Events and community assets.
Leading Council Strategic Area Priorities - delivery Campaigning for MAKI Rural Area Objectives
Environment – promoting • Campbeltown built heritage (CARS, THI, • Supporting and promoting community Outstanding our cultural, social and Dalintober Jetty) initiatives to capitalise on our heritage and Environment natural heritage and • Events and Festivals environmental resources: Kintyre Way, protecting our unique area Dalriada Project, Kilmory Home Farm. • Tarbert Flood Prevention
Social Change – affecting • Expand Ring and Ride scheme to whole of Kintyre • Sustainability of Community Regeneration demographic change, • Implementing youth work strategy (particular focus Fund initiatives caring for vulnerable on NEET / excluded young people) • Enhacing support for community and people and lifelong learning • All weather pitches (Campbeltown, Bowmore) voluntary sector Vibrant • Tarbert Affordable Housing Communities Page 129
Economy – creating an • Develop and deliver Town Centre action plans • Improved ferry connections (Ballycastle, (Campbeltown+ Kintyre, Inveraray, Ardrishaig, Carradale) attractive, well connected, Jura, Tarbert) modern economy • Improvements to A83 • Enhance Tarbert and Bowmore town centre car parking • Enhanced air services (Campbeltown, Islay) • Trunking A83 to Campbeltown • Small scale industrial units for Tarbert
Organisational • Office Rationalisation (Lochgilphead, Forward Development – improving, Campbeltown) • Attracting shared financial services jobs to Looking innovative, proactive and Campbeltown successful
Underpinned by our values and ways of working
1 Page 130
This page is intentionally left blank Corporate Plan 2007-2011 and beyond
Leading Rural Council Strategic Strategic Delivery Campaigning for Argyll and Bute Area Objectives
Environment – promoting • Renewables – bringing community benefits Infrastructure Outstanding our cultural, social and • Waste management – reducing landfill • Roads network Environment natural heritage and • Sustainable land management • Power grid to capitalise on renewables protecting our unique area • Homecoming 2009 Developing the economy • Strengthening existing activity Social Change – affecting • Education – making what’s good, better • New opportunities Page 131 demographic change, • Social work – better outcomes for people caring for vulnerable people • Housing – more homes, less homelessness Remote and island communities Vibrant and lifelong learning • Removing barriers to travel – financial, routes Communities and timetabling • Access to services and support for key/iconic Economy – creating an • Transport – improving access to the area services attractive, well connected, • Waterfront and town centre regeneration • Opportunities for young people to stay or modern economy • Marketing Argyll and Bute move to island and remote communities
Service delivery challenges • Public service integration Organisational • Business change and improvement • Supersparsity Forward Development – improving, • Performance culture • People ‘on the fringe’ Looking innovative, proactive and • Shared and integrated services successful • Developing the third sector
Underpinned by our values and ways of working
Agreed 26-Sep-2007 1 Page 132
This page is intentionally left blank Page 133 Agenda Item 15
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL MID ARGYLL, KINTYRE AND ISLAY COMMUNITY SERVICES AREA COMMITTEE
7 May 2008
APPLICATIONS BY VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS FOR VOLUNTARY SECTOR GRANT 2008/2009
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The allocation for Education Development grants for this financial year for Mid Argyll, Kintyre & the Islands is £18,715. The allocation for Leisure Development grants is £19,655.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 The Area Committee is asked to consider the grant applications submitted, as listed below, to note the levels of funding recommended and to agree the amounts of grant to be made.
3. ALLOCATION
Youth Provision
Educ % of Recomm- ORGANISATION Project cost Request /Leis project endation Girl Guiding Argyll 3580 500 E 13.9 500 Tarbert Youth Group 10000 3000 E 28.35 2835 Kintyre Youth Enquiry Service 84776 5000 E 3.5 3000 Mid-Argyll Youth Project 32248 6248 E 19.3 2835 9170
Events and Festivals
Project Educ / % of Recomm- ORGANISATION cost Request Leis project endation Isle of Jura Music Festival, 13000 1000 E 6 930 Lanterns @ 10, 13500 1500 L 5.9 930 Lochgilphead Christmas Lights Festival, 8000 4000 L 9.75 930 Mid-Argyll Music Festival, 10000 1000 L 7.8 930 L *Mull of Kintyre Music and Arts Assoc., 77300 4000 5.17 4000 Mull of Kintyre Pipe Band L Championships, 19250 8250 5 930
Masters/Grants summary Education Page 134
Museum of Islay Life, 4200 2100 L 23.3 930 Tarbert Music Festival Association, 15000 3000 L 4.5 930 Tarbert Seafood Festival, 22650 5000 L 3 930 11440
*If the recommendation from the report submitted by Corporate Services (Agenda item number 14) is agreed, the table below shows alternative structure for support for Events and Festivals.
Educ / % of Project Leis proj Recomm- ORGANISATION cost Request ect endation Isle of Jura Music Festival, 13000 1000 E 7.6 1000 Lanterns @ 10, 13500 1500 L 11.1 1500 Lochgilphead Christmas Lights Festival, 8000 2000 L 16.5 1590 Mid-Argyll Music Festival, 10000 1000 L 10 1000 Mull of Kintyre Pipe Band L Championships, 19250 8250 6.8 1590 Museum of Islay Life, 4200 2100 L 31.5 1590 Tarbert Music Festival Association, 15000 3000 L 8.8 1590 Tarbert Seafood Festival, 22650 5000 L 5.4 1590 11450
Arts and Culture
Proje Educ /L ct eis % of Recomm- ORGANISATION cost Request project endation Craignish Village Hall, 8065 2950 L 8.4 750 Campbeltown Brass, 6680 2680 E 11.6 900 Coisir OgDhail Riata, 3845 1922 E 15.8 750 Argyll Drama Festival, 1970 660 L 24.3 500 Dochas Fund, 3128 1564 E 21.7 780 Auchindrain Trust 7400 1000 E 13.2 900 Kilmartin House Museum, 4060 1500 E 24.1 900 Kintyre Juvenile Pipe Band Assoc, 53056 13056 E 1.2 900 Kintyre Music Club, 2800 500 L 10.7 320 Mid-Argyll Pipe Band, 31342 2043 L 2.1 900 7600 220
Halls
Project Educ /L % of Recomm- ORGANISATION cost Request eis project endation Bruichladdich Hall Committee, 13250 1700 L 5.2 700 Furnace Amenity Association, 35000 1000 L 2 700 1400
Masters/Grants summary Education Page 135
Summer/Out of School Activities
Project Educ / % of Recomm- ORGANISATION cost Request Leis project endation Dalintober & Millknowe Playscheme, 1610 805 E 35.4 575 SEN Parents Support Group, 11751 5366 E 4.8 580 1155
Sports
Project Educ / % of Recomm- ORGANISATION cost Request Leis project endation Islay and Jura Community Enterprises Ltd, 5980 1000 E 14.2 810 Islay and Jura Dolphins Assoc, 2900 1450 L 18.4 575 Mull of Kintyre Run Committee, 15005 1611 L 5.1 810 Tarbert Loch Fyne Yacht Club, 6300 3000 L 8.4 575 South Kintyre Sports Council 3300 1300 L 26.2 920 Islay Masters Swimmers 3164 1582 E 16.4 575 Islay Canoe Club 1135 568 L 30.8 400 4665
Miscellaneous
Ed uc / Project Lei % of Recomm- ORGANISATION cost Request s project endation Ardrishaig Horticultural Society, 1049 500 L 33.3 350 Campbeltown Community Business Ltd, 4826 2413 L 18 870 Finlaggan Trust, 4044 2000 L 16.8 700 The Columba Centre Islay, 3880 1940 E 18.8 730 U3A Mid-Argyll, 1350 675 E 25.9 350 3000
3.1 The allocation of these grants fully commits the grants budgets for the remainder of this financial year 2008-2009.
3.2 The Summary report forms are available for members’ further information.
4. IMPLICATIONS
Policy: The recommendations within this report reflect the Council’s commitment to the support of work with young people and the support of the voluntary sector in Argyll and Bute.
Masters/Grants summary Education Page 136
Financial: Grants awarded will be met from the relevant allocation within the education service revenue budget and the leisure development budget for 2008/2009
Personnel: None
Equal None Opportunities: Legal: Grants with recommendations of over £2000 have been checked by Finance Section
Felicity Kelly May 2008
For further information please contact: Felicity Kelly, Area Community Learning and Regeneration Manager, Lochgilphead Community Education Office, Manse Brae, Lochgilphead. 01546 604750 / 01586 559000
Masters/Grants summary Education Page 137 Agenda Item 16
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL AREA COMMITTEE COMMUNIT Y SERVICES 11 APRIL 2008
PUBLIC CONSULTATION FEEDBACK
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Public consultation on the proposals for older people’s services took place between 18 February and 18 March 2008. The feedback from this is detailed in the body of this report.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 The Area Committee is asked to note the contents of the surveys undertaken and comments received from public and stakeholders about the future of older people’s services and take these into account in the tender process.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 49 Consultation events took place across Argyll and Bute, all but one were chaired by the external consultant, Douglas Boynton. (Mr Boynton’s report attached at Appendix 1).
3.2 Approximately 500 people attended these events.
3.3 402 questionnaires from a total of 800 were returned from Home Care Service Users (see appendix 2).
3.4 49 Day Care questionnaires were returned (appendix 3).
3.5 35 comments forms were returned from Council Care Home residents, residents family and staff.
3.6 61 suggestion and comments forms returned following consultation events.
3.7 The most frequently asked questions have been noted for consideration and will be published on the Council’s website.
3.8 A report outlining this activity was presented at the following meetings:
• 4 Area Committees • Argyll and Bute Health and Care Strategic Partnership • Argyll and Bute Community Health Partnership Page 138
• Community Planning Partnership.
3.9 Two phone-in sessions were held in mid March but only two calls were received. Five internet messages were received and responded to.
3.10 Cowal Community Care Forum held a special meeting for this purpose. Their formal response is attached as appendix 5.
3.11 Information packs and personal letters were sent to all list MSPs. Two letters of acknowledgement were received.
3.12 All local newspapers carried an advert about the consultation, albeit these were, in some instances, not in prominent positions and therefore missed by some readers.
4. FEEDBACK
4.1 Having considered the feedback, the following concerns require to be taken into account:
• The public in general is concerned about the quality of privately provided care in Care Homes or Home Care/Day Care.
• The quality of service provided by the Council is held in very high regard.
• Most respondees would prefer the Council to continue as a direct provider of care.
• There is recognition that cost is an issue. Can the Council fund older people’s services as a priority?
• Local services should be available including care home places.
• How can we ensure any savings made from these proposals are reinvested in older people’s services?
• What democratic controls will there be for residents in private Care Homes? Will monitoring arrangements add to the cost?
• Will joint work with Health continue?
• Concerns about the ability to recruit, staff turnover and training, use of migrant workers.
• Different solutions may be appropriate for different areas.
• Concerns over Council staff employment and conditions of service.
• Are there other options to privatisation?
1consultationfeedbackareacommittees0.Doc 2 29/04/08 Page 139
5. NEXT STEPS
5.1 Survey returns analysis and Frequently Asked Questions/Comments will be circulated to Care Homes, Day Care and Home Care Services and published on the website to reassure stakeholders that their contribution is being considered in the preparation of the tenders.
25 March 2008
For further information contact: Sandra Greer Head of Service Kilmory Lochgilphead
Tel: 01546 604391
1consultationfeedbackareacommittees0.Doc 3 29/04/08 Page 140
This page is intentionally left blank Page 141 Appendix 1
RRREPORTREPORT ON THE CONSULTATION DURING FEBRUARY / MARCH 2008 ON FUTURE SERSERVVVVICESICES FOR OLDER PEOPLE IN ARGYLL AND BUTE
Prepared by Douglas Boynton, Social Care Consultant
1 SUMMARY
1.1 In September 2007 Argyll and Bute Council’s Executive Committee considered a report on the future of services for older people and agreed that an options appraisal would be undertaken. 1.2 The Council also approved a Consultation and Communication Strategy and a programme of meetings with various stakeholders throughout Argyll and Bute was arranged. In order to promote objectivity an independent consultant was engaged to lead the meetings. 1.3 A total of 49 meetings took place in localities including Mull, Tiree, Oban, Mid Argyll, Campbeltown, Islay, Helensburgh, Bute and Cowal. In all some 500 people attended the meetings. 1.4 Detailed notes were taken of the issues raised by those attending the meetings. 1.5 There was some criticism, particularly in the first week about the way in which the consultation programme had been organised 1.6 Concerns were expressed about the quality of the services thought to be on offer from the independent sector 1.7 There was a general lack of confidence in the role of the Care Commission and of the Council itself in monitoring and ensuring quality. 1.8 The tendency of the private sector to ‘cherry pick’ in terms both of service users and of locality was a concern. 1.9 There were many concerns expressed about the consequences of the Council applying a ‘one size fits all’ approach. 1.10 There were a range of understandable concerns expressed by staff about the potential impact on them of any change in provider arrangements. 1.11 It was felt that the Council needs to look at ways of making better use of what it already has rather than simply abandoning its role as major provider.
222 BBBACKGROUND BACKGROUND
2.1.1 In September 2007 Argyll and Bute Council’s Executive Committee considered a report on the future of services for older people. The Committee agreed that an options appraisal would be undertaken which would include a tendering process for certain services, in order to evaluate the merits of externally provided services as an alternative to direct provision.
The Council also approved a Consultation and Communication Strategy for the project which set out the commitment of the Council to effective consultation and meaningful communication with elected members, staff, service users and their families and other internal and external stakeholders.
1
Page 142 Appendix 1
The strategy sets out the standards and principles for consultation, indicates the content and scope of the process and details the methods to be used.
2.1.2 In line with the Consultation and Communication Strategy a programme of meetings with various stakeholders throughout Argyll and Bute was arranged. In order to promote objectivity an independent consultant was engaged to lead the meetings. The consultant, Douglas Boynton has a background in senior management in the public sector and had previously been employed as Head of Services for Older People by Aberdeenshire Council. The consultant was supported by two Council Officers, Linda Thomson and Lorna McCallum. In addition one of the Council’s Community Services managers was in attendance at most of the meetings in order to demonstrate the Council’s commitment to the process and to respond to any issues arising to which a Council response was required.
2.1.3 A total of 49 meetings took place in localities including Mull, Tiree, Oban, Mid Argyll, Campbeltown, Islay, Helensburgh, Bute and Cowal. In all some 500 people attended. Separate meetings were arranged for the various interested parties. However, in practice attendance tended to overlap with, for example, some staff attending meetings primarily aimed at service users and carers. It is felt that this did not have any particular impact on the programme as a whole. A standard Powerpoint presentation format was used in order to ensure consistency. However at some meetings, for example at those with care home residents, a different style was adopted. Detailed notes were kept of the main points arising at each of the meetings and the main issues are summarised below.
2.2 Outcomes of the Consultation Programme Meetings
2.2.2.2.1111 Views of the Consultation Process
There was criticism, particularly in the first week about the way in which the consultation programme had been organised. It was felt that the notice given for meetings was too short and that advertising had been poor. That being said, the general turnout to meetings was perhaps as good as could have been expected and often these complaints were voiced by people who were nonetheless at the meetings!
“Whole thing has been very rushed! Not well advertised – no info at all!” (Lynnside,Oban)
There was a degree of cynicism, particularly from staff about whether the consultation process was genuine one. In anticipation of this response, mention was made in the presentation of the consultation strategy and of the Council’s commitment to genuinely listen to the outcomes of the process. However, views were expressed about it being
“A done deal and this consultation is just a cosmetic exercise”.
2
Page 143 Appendix 1
The recent Single Status issues were still a factor in affecting staff attitudes and there was some criticism of the timing of the consultation exercise which was seen to be following closely the recent difficulties in staff/employer relations.
Amongst the public, there were some similar views expressed but there was a general acceptance that the consultation process represented a genuine opportunity for people to have their say. However there were strongly expressed views in one location in particular that the consultation should not end at this stage. It was felt that the Council should, before advertising any tender for services, go back to communities to make sure that the tender document fully reflects the issues arising from the consultation process.
2.2.2.2.2222 Quality
Concerns about the quality of the services thought to be on offer from the independent sector formed by far the most numerous group of comments made. A significant number of ‘real-life’ examples of poor quality services were given, most commonly by family carers who had had direct experience of care home places on offer in private sector homes.
“Private Providers are out to make money. If the Council afford to run these services, how can a private provider do so without making cuts to quality? We are very lucky in the staff we have here and the way the home is run, we don’t want change” (Gortonvogie Day Hospital, Islay) .
The main concerns expressed were:
• The low quality of care provided by private sector staff. There is a perceived lack of training and expertise of private care staff and a perception that overseas workers are often employed in large numbers with consequent communication difficulties, and a general view that staff commitment is low because of poor terms and conditions.
“Council have a rigorous programme for staff re Moving and Handling - how would this be run for Private Providers?” (Willow View, Oban) “PP’s employ a lot of foreign workers – how can they communicate with older people and those with Dementia?” (Struan Lodge, Dunoon)
• By contrast the work of the Council’s existing staff was almost universally praised. It was felt that staff managed to provide high quality care despite, in some cases, inadequate facilities and poor employment conditions. The ‘public sector ethos’ was felt to apply so that staff were willing to ‘go the extra mile’ in order to provide a more personalised service, often providing more than they were paid to do. This contrasted with the private sector staff giving a basic service in return for basic wages.
3
Page 144 Appendix 1
“Great care in a lovely setting & we are spoiled here with the small numbers” (Dunaros care Home, Mull)
• Concerns were also expressed about the financial viability and long term commitment of private care companies. Examples were given of privately owned homes that had closed without warning and there was a need for effective contingency arrangements to underpin any outsourcing arrangement.
• In general the private sector was felt to offer large scale, impersonal and basic services, in contrast to the more local, homely and personalised services on offer from the Council. Privately provided services were felt to be less reliable and less consistent. Examples were given of private homecarers simply not turning up and of many different and unfamiliar carers being used for individual service users.
“What if an external provider does not turn up? Worries over contracting – agencies can step back from their contracts as the contracts have no teeth attached!” (Willow View, Oban)
• There was a general lack of confidence expressed in the role of the Care Commission and of the Council itself in monitoring and ensuring quality. It was felt the Care Commission operated a system of basic standards which did not ensure good quality care. There were also criticisms of their lack of consistency and a view (mostly expressed by Council staff) that private care operators were given an ’easier ride’ than the Council in terms of compliance with required standards. It was felt that the Council needed to put in place more effective contract compliance and quality monitoring systems than currently appear to exist.
• The tendency of the private sector to ‘cherry pick’ in terms both of choice of service users and of locality was a concern. It was felt that by and large private companies were interested in service users whose needs were more straightforward and who live in towns and more accessible places and that people with more complex needs living in more remote places would be given less priority. It was felt the Council would need to have very secure tendering and contracting processes in order to ensure equity of service provision.
“Would clients in remote rural areas would be of financial interest to Private Providers?” (Willow View, Oban)
2.2.2.2.3333 Diversity
There were many concerns expressed about the consequences of the Council applying a ‘one size fits all’ approach. It was felt that the Council needed to recognise that different approaches might be required in different
4
Page 145 Appendix 1
areas in response to variable patterns of need and distinctive community structures. There were thought to be dangers in the Council opting for a single alternative provider of services as it was feared that the provider’s energies would be focussed upon the more urban areas with a consequent neglect of more remote communities. It was felt that inevitably there would be a drift away from the provision of services at a local level and that people would have to travel away in order to receive services.
These concerns were voiced most prominently but not solely by the island communities who felt that ‘mainland solutions’ would not work for them. The potential for residents having to leave the island in order to receive care was a particular concern. The absence of an alternative workforce and difficulties in housing any new staff were given as particular issues which would have to be faced by any new provider.
The Council was urged to consider a flexible approach in any tendering process, recognising the differing needs of the variety of communities in its area.
2.2.2.2.44 Staff Concerns
There were a range of understandable concerns expressed by staff about the potential impact on them of any change in provider arrangements. Staff generally seemed to be aware of their position in terms of employment law. However, they were concerned about whether jobs would continue to be available to them and also about the potential impact on terms and conditions. Confidence in the effectiveness of the Trade Unions seemed low. There seemed to be a generally fatalistic attitude on the part of staff to the future.
“Morale and Motivation is very low – staff feel they have been “sold down the river” (Salen Resource centre, Mull)
Members of the public, particularly service users voiced concerns about the implications for staff.
“Residents here have great relationships with staff and if staff are paid less under PP’s then the quality of staff will not be there!” (Eadar Glinn, Oban)
2.2.2.2.5555 Other Issues
As well as the main concerns described above, a range of other issues arose at meetings.
• The Council needs to look at ways of making better use of what it already has rather than simply abandoning its role as major provider. Many comments were made about the high costs of Council services and views were expressed about how Council’s could make themselves more able to deliver cost effective services, for instance
5
Page 146 Appendix 1
by setting up an ‘arms length’ organisation to run care services. It was also felt that some resources were underused. For example the capacity of sheltered housing to provide other resources to local communities was felt to be something needing to be explored further.
• It was felt that the Council need to engage more effectively with communities in harnessing the resources which already exist, particularly through voluntary organisations. This it was felt could go some way to alleviating some of the problems of providing services in remote communities. A suggestion was made at two of the meetings on Islay that a form of community trust should be set up to operate care services on a non-profit making basis and it was felt that the Council should provide active support for initiatives of this sort.
• There were worries about the potential impact of change on the already fragile economies of remote communities. As the Council is currently a major employer in many smaller communities, any change could have a significant impact
• The potential impact on partnership working particularly with NHS was an area of concern. There are many examples of joint working arrangements, both formal and informal and it was felt that these would be more difficult with an alternative social care service provider. “What about Continuing Care beds at Tigh a Rudh – these beds are well used and we are afraid of losing them?” (Crossapol, Tiree)
• People were worried about the potential impact of change on the Council’s charging policy. Despite reassurance being given at meetings there is a worry that private services will cost more.
• A number of very local issues were raised and although attempts were made both at meetings and afterwards to provide information it may be that a further specific response is needed. The main issues were:
Ø The perceived lack of progress on the development of the Mull progressive care centre Ø The need for upgrading at Tigh A Rudh home, Tiree Ø Concerns about the future viability of Eader Glinn home, Oban
• A number of positive comments were made about the potential of progressive care centres as a future model of care, the replication of the joint day care service currently provided at Garelochead, examples of better value in private care homes and the example of ACHA as an alternative to Council provision.
6
Page 147 Appendix 1
333 CONCLUSIONS
3.1 In spite of the criticism of some elements of the organisation of the consultation programme and of the doubts expressed by some about its value, the consultation process as a whole has been relatively successful in engaging with stakeholders. In order to emphasise the Council’s commitment to genuine consultation there needs to be a continuing process whereby the various stakeholders continue to be engaged in whatever changes are to take place. Further information needs to continue to be provided for people who use services and their carers, for staff, for partners and for communities as the decision-making process progresses.
3.2 It is perhaps inevitable that in responding to proposals for change to familiar ways of providing services, people focus on concerns and problems rather than on advantages. There was an underlying acceptance that the Council needs to do something to respond to the challenges of the future but there were genuine concerns about what would be on offer from alternative providers.
3.3 The major concerns expressed about the proposed changes in arrangements for the delivery of services for older people were about quality. In many parts of Argyll and Bute the private sector providers do not appear to have a good reputation. Some of the particular concerns are based more on hearsay rather than on any direct evidence although some comments are based on experience such as those made by the relatives of people who live in the Council’s care homes. It is therefore important that the Council is seen to positively address issues of quality in the tendering process. Existing arrangements for ensuring standards and quality do not appear to be regarded as being very effective. It is important that positive information is given about the Council’s quality assurance mechanisms and those of the Care Commission in order to promote confidence in any changed ways of delivering services.
3.4 Specific responses to some of the local issues identified above would promote the value of people having their say and help to underline the Council’s commitment to genuine consultation.
DOUGLAS BOYNTON
Social Care Consultant Mill of Blackford Rothienorman Inverurie AB51 8YL
7
Page 148 Appendix 1
8
Page 149 Appendix 2
Home Care Analysis
Extremely Neither satisfied nor Satisfied Satisfied dissatisfied Dissatisfied 1 How satisfied are you with the help you receive in your own home ? 53.88 40.35 3.51 1.00
1 How satisfied are you with the help you receive in your own home ?
4% 1%
Extremely Satisfied Satisfied 41% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 54% Dissatisfied
Page 150 Appendix 2
Always Never Come Usually Come Sometime Come Come 2 Do your careworkers come at times that suit you ? 53.63 39.35 6.27 0.00
2 Do your careworkers come at times that suit you ?
6% 0%
Always Come Usually Come 40% Sometime Come 54% Never Come
Page 151 Appendix 2
Always Sometimes Never 3 Do your careworkers stay for the correct length of time which is stated in your care plan ? 82.21 14.79 0.75
3 Do your careworkers stay for the correct length of time which is stated in your care plan ?
1%
15%
Always Sometimes Never
84%
Page 152 Appendix 2
Always let Usually let me Hardly ever Never let me know know let me know me know 4 Are you kept informed by your care service about changes in your care ? 53.13 34.34 6.52 4.01
4 Are you kept informed by your care service about changes in your care ?
4% 7%
Always let me know Usually let me know Hardly ever let me know 54% Never let me know 35% Page 153 Appendix 2
Always Nearly always Sometimes Never 5 Do Careworkers do things you want done ? 69.92 21.80 4.76 0.00
5 Do Careworkers do things you want done ?
5% 0%
23%
Always Nearly always Sometimes Never
72%
Page 154 Appendix 2
I do not feel I No I do I feel I could could not know 6 Do you know how to make a complaint about the Home Care Service? 80.45 4.26 11.03
6 Do you know how to make a complaint about the Home Care Service?
12%
4%
I feel I could I do not feel I could No I do not know
84%
Page 155 Appendix 2
Always Sometimes No 7 Does your home carer meet you with respect ? 93.98 2.76 0.50
7 Does your home carer meet you with respect ?
3% 1%
Always Sometimes No
96%
Page 156 Appendix 2
Strongly Strongly agree Agree Disagree disagree 9a I feel safe in my home ? 62.41 30.33 1.25 0.25
9a Do I feel safe in my home ?
0% 1%
32%
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
67%
Page 157 Appendix 2
Strongly Strongly agree Agree Disagree disagree 9b I have as much contact with other people as I want ? 44.36 37.84 8.52 2.26
9b I have as much contact with other people as I want ?
2% 9%
Strongly agree 48% Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
41% Page 158 Appendix 2
Strongly Strongly agree Agree Disagree disagree 9c I get up and go to bed at times that suit me ? 55.64 32.33 4.26 1.00
9c I get up and go to bed at times that suit me ?
5% 1%
35% Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
59% Page 159 Appendix 2
I have no I have some control Services help control over over I feel in me feel in my daily life my control of control of my but not daily my daily life daily life enough life 10 Which of the following statements best describes your present situation > 38.85 47.12 9.27 2.26
10 Which of the following statements best describes your present situation >
2% 10%
40% I feel in control of my daily life
Services help me feel in control of my daily life
I have some control over my daily life but not enough I have no control over my daily life
48%
Page 160 Appendix 2
Yes from Yes from someone someone living in my in another household household No 12 Do you receive any practical help from friends etc ? 20.80 56.14 22.06
12 Do you receive any practical help from friends etc ?
22% 21%
Yes from someone living in my household Yes from someone in another household No
57%
Page 161 Appendix 2
Commun Lunch Meals on Day ity/Distri club wheels Centre ct nurse Other 13 During the past month did you use any of the following care services? 14.29 8.77 16.29 48.12 8.52
13 During the past month did you use any of the following care services?
9% 15%
9%
Lunch club Meals on wheels Day Centre Community/District nurse other
17% 50%
Page 162 Appendix 2
Male Female 15 Are You male or female ? 127 254 31.83 63.66
15 Are You male or female ?
33%
Male Female
67% Page 163 Appendix 2
Under 65 65-74 75-84 85 + 16 How old are you ? 7.02 14.04 33.58 41.60
16 How old are you ?
7%
15%
43% Under 65 65-74 75-84 85 +
35% Page 164 Appendix 2
Help from care Myself worker Someone else 17 Did you fill in this questionnaire by yourself or help from someone else ? 38.10 11.53 44.86
17 Did you fill in this questionnaire by yourself or help from someone else ?
40%
48% Myself Help from care worker Someone else
12%
Page 165
Appendix 3
Day Service Questionnaire – 49 returns
What we would like you to do
We would like you to help us by taking a few minutes to give us your views about the day care services you receive. This is to assist us to plan for the future of our day care services to ensure your needs are taken into account. If you do not wish to answer the questions, this won’t affect the services you receive.
A. About the Day Service we currently provide
1. What are the positive aspects of the day service you currently attend? Please tick · Location of service 42 · Staff 44 · Duration of service 36 · Personal care 37 · Transport 36 · Meals 43 · Activities 35 · Other (please specify) outings, socialisation
2. What are the negative aspects of the day service you currently attend? Please tick
· Location of service 2 · Staff 1 · Duration of service 1 · Personal care 2 · Transport 4 · Meals 5 · Activities 6 · Other (please specify)
Page 166
Appendix 3
B. About You 1. How do you spend your day when not at day services?
Please let us know:-
Reading, knitting, at home, visiting, light housework, TV, radio, snoozing, lonely, exercising, in garden, craft classes.
2. Are there other things that your family and friends do that you would like to do? Please let us know:-
No 3 Out for Lunch 3 Shopping 3 Socialising Cinema 1 be able to drive Dancing 1
3. What do you like to do? Please let us know:-
Car trips Reading Quizzes Gardening Writing Games Bingo Exercising Crosswords Bowls Chatting/socialising Dancing Dog walks Painting Visits to places of interest
Page 167
Appendix 3
4. What has stopped you from doing this? Please let us know:-
ill health disability access mobility vision weather assistance needed confidence caring for spouse
5. Where could these other things take place? Please let us know:-
Day Centre Home Around town Marina Clubs
C. The answers to the next group of questions will be used to make sure that we have a balanced sample of day care users.
1. Are you Male or Female? Please tick [üüü] one box Male 12 Female 37
2. How old are you? Please tick [ üüü] one box Under 65 1 65 – 74 9 75 – 84 24 85 or over 12
3. Are you Service User or Carer? Please tick [üüü] one box Service User 42 Carer 6 Friend or Family 1 Page 168
Appendix 3
4. What type of day service do you attend? Please tick [ üüü] one box Council 48 Day Hospital 1
5. Location of Day Service Please Specify:
Lynnside 19 Smiddy House 5 Struan 21 Missing 3
Please note that this questionnaire and your answers will be treated in the strictest confidence. Please place the completed questionnaire in the suggestion box located in the day centre. Page 169 Agenda Item 17
ARGYLL & BUTE COUNCIL AREA COMMITTEES
CORPORATE SERVICES
EXTRACT OF MINUTE OF THE EXECUTIVE – 17 APRIL 2008
8. JOINT LOCALITY MEETINGS - JOINT FUTURE
A report inviting the nominations of Members to four locality groups which meet to consider health and social care issues was considered.
Decision
1. To note the contents of the report; and 2. To refer the report without recommendation to the Area Committees to make the necessary appointments.
(Reference: Report by Director of Community Services dated 27 March 2008, submitted)
Page 170
This page is intentionally left blank Page 171
ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE
COMMUNITY SERVICES THURSDAY 17 APRIL 2008
JOINT LOCALITY MEETINGS: JOINT FUTURE
1. SUMMARY
1.1 This paper invites the nominations of Members to four locality groups which meet to consider health and social care issues.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Members are asked to note the content of the report.
2.2 Members are asked to nominate a member to attend the locality group on behalf of the local Committee, participate fully in the process and report appropriately along-side the local Area Managers, with the appointed Member reporting back to the relevant Area Committee.
3. DETAIL
3.1 The adult care managers from Social Work and the Community Health Partnership (NHS) routinely meet to develop local service proposals and take a local overview of the implementation of the joint future agenda. The agenda can vary from developing proposals in relation to:
• Reduction of NHS continuing care beds and resource release. • Management and development of integrated teams and services. • Re-design of services for learning disability and mental health. • General operational issues relating to joint working.
(These are examples of the agenda and not a complete list)
3.2 Core membership is as follows:
• Social Work Area Managers for Adult Care.
• Link Social Work Service Manager (each locality is designated a link Service Manager, see appendix A for details).
• NHS Locality Health Manager.
• NHS Locality Clinical Nurse Manager.
• Representation from local Community Care Forum.
• Representation from local Carers group.
Page 172
3.3 The locality groups work within the governance arrangements of the Health and Care Strategic Partnership and any strategic decisions will be progressed at that level and communicated to local managers for implementation as appropriate to their area. Any service re-design proposals developed by the local group will be passed to the Strategic Group for authorisation after it has been given general approval at the Joint Implementation Group (Senior Officer Group that serves the Strategic Group).
3.4 See appendix A for the details of each meeting and the name of the link Social Work Service Manager who has been provided a geographical strategic remit in addition to their client specific remit.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 The Joint Locality meeting provide the forum for local managers to develop and implement the joint future agenda within the framework of the Health and Care Strategic Partnership.
4.2 Local member participation in the locality group provides the opportunity for full political participation in process which is highly significant both in terms of future services and the working relationships between the Council and the NHS.
5. IMPLICATIONS
Policy: Consistent with National Policy for Joint Future
Financial: None
Legal: Community Care (Scotland) Act 2002
Personnel: Service development will sustain existing employment within the council, the NHS and the independent care sector.
Equal Opportunities: None.
Director of Community Services 27 March 2008
For further information contact:
James D M Robb, Head of Service, Adult Care Kilmory, Lochgilphead, 01546-604323 [email protected] Page 173
Appendix A
Joint Locality Meetings, Social Work, Argyll and Bute Council & NHS
Locality Meeting
Bute & Cowal Cowal Joint Service Development Group. Meets quarterly.
Chair: Viv Smith, NHS Locality Manager
Meetings: 13 th June, 12 th September, 12 th December, all at 10am in the Dunoon General Hospital.
Councillor Bruce Marshall Attends.
Link Service Manager: Allen Stevenson, Service ,Manager Mental Health Oban Lorn & the Joint Locality Meeting. Held at 3 monthly intervals. Isles Chair: Christina West Clinical Services Manager, NHS
Next Meeting: To be arranged following cancellation of meeting during the week of 31 st March 2008.
Councillor E Robertson attends
Link Service Manager: Joanna Hynd Service Manager Community Care( Operations)
Mid Argyll, Kintyre Joint Locality Meeting. Held at 3 monthly intervals. & Islay Chair: J Dreghorn, Locality Manager. (Next date still to be arranged)
Councillors Hay and Colville have attended on occasion
Link Service Manager: Adrian Patterson, Service Manager Learning Disability Joint Locality Meeting. Held at 3 monthly intervals. Helensburgh & Lomond Chair: David Moffat, Area Manager (Operations) Social Work
Next Meeting: 22 nd May at 2pm
No Councillors attend
Councillors have been invited to attend in the past but none attended
Link Service Manager: Anne Austin Service Manager Community Care (Resources)
Page 174
This page is intentionally left blank Page 175 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 9 Agenda Item 18 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 178
This page is intentionally left blank Page 179 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 Agenda Item 19 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 182
This page is intentionally left blank Page 183 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 184
This page is intentionally left blank Page 185 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 Agenda Item 20a of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 192
This page is intentionally left blank Page 193 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 194
This page is intentionally left blank Page 195 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 Agenda Item 20b of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 202
This page is intentionally left blank Page 203 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 204
This page is intentionally left blank Page 205 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 Agenda Item 20c of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 206
This page is intentionally left blank Page 207 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 13 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 208
This page is intentionally left blank Page 209 NOT FOR PUBLICATION by virtue of paragraph(s) 8, 9 Agenda Item 21 of Schedule 7A of the Local Government(Scotland) Act 1973
Document is Restricted Page 210
This page is intentionally left blank